Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Meta talk:Requests for adminship/Archives/2011

< Meta talk:Requests for adminship | Archives
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Savh in topic Requests for "adminship" or "rights"?

Requests for "adminship" or "rights"?

Latest comment: 11 years ago20 comments11 people in discussion

I see this page hosts not only adminship requests, but also bureaucratship, checkuser, oversight, and even bot flag requests. So, I think the appropriate name of this page should be "Requests for rights". What you all think? — Tanvir • 13:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

  Support, but I'd rather "Meta:Requests for permissions". Ruy Pugliesi◥ 13:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I have no problem with that too. — Tanvir • 13:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Meta:Requests for permissions would be much more appropriate. –BruTe talk 14:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Requests for permissions sounds better imo. Regards, Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 14:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  Support someone move it with it's subpages Mardetanha talk 14:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Wait! - Meta:Requests for permissions was and is used and it is linked in several right log changes & pages itself as it was part of the current Steward requests/Permissions page. Can't be moved to that title. What's the problem with the current naming? I do not see any problems. I'm not in favour of moving it. Even in enwiki w:WP:RFA hosts requests for bureaucratship itself. Breaking hundreds of log entries is not such a good idea. --dferg ☎ talk 14:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

We can delete Meta:Requests for permissions page to move. That won't be a problem. When we move this page, we will also move the history. I don't think it will break anything. I don't understand this comment, can you explain it a bit more please? FYI, English Wikipedia has its own pages for bot requests and other permissions, we don't have that. — Tanvir • 15:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I know that it can be deleted and moved but I mean in the page is linked in the logs (which we can not change). --dferg ☎ talk 15:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Are you referring to the diffs links? — Tanvir • 15:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm refering to things like this :-) --dferg ☎ talk 15:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Per Dferg, now I also think we should not move this page to "Request for permission". But we "Requests for right" is still available. It's also fine to me to find everything in one place, but I was referring to the title which is not exactly right. I'm also not saying it's making confusion and will be, but you all know it's not a reasonably correct title to use. — Tanvir • 10:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

"Requests for rights" still sounds like a good idea to me.   Support. Ruy Pugliesi◥ 23:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose any sort of moves. This page does not hurt as it is. -- Dferg ☎ talk 23:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Support: Requests for rights--Steinsplitter (talk) 14:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

  Support IMHO namespace "meta" should be reserved for meat affairs, no need to redirect Meta:Requests for permissions to Steward requests/Permissions. Anyways, both Meta:Requests for permissions and Meta:Requests for rights sound reasonable to me! a×pdeHello! 08:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Longer term adminship issue on Meta

Latest comment: 13 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed.

A comment: Herby mentioned here that you considered these the requirements for Meta adminship itself, and that old admins would be desysopped when the rules change. On the other hand, I was under the impression that the requirements were for starting a new adminship nomination. At least MZMcBride is a current sysop who is not an admin in a content project. Jafeluv 10:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a seperate issue so I've moved it - hope you don't mind.
There are two issues for me here. I've always seen it that you could only hold admin here if you were an admin elsewhere. That always made sense to me as admin here is literally a "meta" adminship. So - if I ceased to be an admin on Commons (my only other sysop) I would have to cease here.
Equally there are my (unpopular) views of the eternity of rights. They are - for me - for people who are active and need them. Admin here is not a badge but a tool. I gues while folk are active here it is not a big issue but that is what the tools are for. --Herby talk thyme 10:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
In Criminal Law we use always restrictive & literal interpretation of the norms because those that restrict rights to the people must be interpreted this way to ensure protection to the accused person. I'm going to use it here because I think it is appropiate for this case:

To request administrator access on Meta, the requirements listed below need to be fulfilled: 1) Be an administrator, bureaucrat, or checkuser on a Wikimedia content project. [...]

— Meta:Administrators#Policy_for_requesting_adminship
Using restrictive & literal interpretation & as policy stands now I understand it like the user must have sysop tools in a project at the moment of requesting adminship at meta; not seeing the requirement of continued adminship in a second project a requirement for continued adminship for meta. Allow me to use you as an example, Herby: if you resigned your tools at commons I personally do not see that this will mean that you'll have to loose it here.
On the other hand, I agree with the views of Herby in the rights & activity thing. We have Meta:Administrators/Removal for this, currently (next run in April, 1).
-- Dferg ☎ talk 11:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Generally not kind to start discussions about people without informing them. In any case, I'm an admin in a few places, at least one of which should count as a content project.
If you can make a compelling case to me (on my talk page or anywhere, really) that my adminship here on Meta-Wiki is a problem, I'll gladly step down. As it is, while I'm not particularly active here (though I think nearly nobody should be active on this meta-wiki), I do occasionally need admin rights to edit protected pages, protect pages, or (rarely) delete pages. It's fairly rare I do much more than that (I can't remember the last block or vandalism reversion I did, though I'm sure I have). --MZMcBride 16:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
If you take the time to read this through you will see it is not about you nut about what the policy is/should be - thanks --Herby talk thyme 16:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
MZMcBride this is not about you. I agree with Dferg that, if someone resign as admin on another project, this shuldn´t be a reason for desysoping here. There are enough areas of work which should be done. If someone thinks that he can better help here than elsewhere, why should we remove the flag just because he has resigned on other wiki? --WizardOfOz talk 17:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
(e/c) I was not talking about anybody in special (I [ab]used Herby in an example) - just putting my thoughts in the current policy & the proposed changes. -- Dferg ☎ talk 17:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, not sure why I thought this was about me when I was specifically mentioned. --MZMcBride 01:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

OK - consider this one closed and merely my misunderstanding of the policy :) --Herby talk thyme 17:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Automatic adminship for stewards

Latest comment: 13 years ago43 comments15 people in discussion

Recently, there have been RfAs in Meta from some of our Stewards. The Meta–Steward relationship page states that stewards can use admin tools for all uncontroversial tasks. I suggest to make all elected Stewards local Meta admins (as long as they are Stewards of course) to allow them to officially become Meta admins and perform admin actions. In my opinion, it would be easier for stewards if they could just delete crosswiki spam here or block a globally blocked IP here for disruption (I'm mentioning IP since globally blocked IPs can edit here). Comments are welcome on this issue. Regards, Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 10:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me understand: Any steward will became a meta admin as long as they continue to be a steward? In others words: If one steward resign or lost his right in the annual confirmation, they will lost the meta adminishp as well? Béria Lima msg 10:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Basically yes, that's what I feel would be good. Of course if a steward is a local sysop already, then their flags will not be removed unless they have been community desysopped. Stewards will be given +sysop because they need to use it as part of their work as a steward; if they no longer are one, I don't see why they should retain the flag. Perhaps we could discuss the adminship of stewards who are not confirmed after the results of the confirmation are announced? Regards, Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 10:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I am agree with this, is the best idea.. Memo18(contribs|talk|ro.wp(t)) 10:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you. But I would be more comfortable if we don't "remove" the flag only because they resign or not been confirmed. I believe is better create a second "confirmation" for the meta adm status. Béria Lima msg 10:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I am too agree with Beria. Memo18(contribs|talk|ro.wp(t)) 10:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry but as I've said in previous times this got discussed I do not agree with this. We have a process for this. If somebody wants to regulary work on meta as administrator he/she should use the regular process. Stewards were granted sysop and bureaucrat access in the past because global rights didn't existed. -- Dferg ☎ talk 12:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
As this was aligned with my comment, I support the thoughts of aligning adminship at Meta with the holding of stewardship. At the end of stewardship, it should be a simple process for those retiring stewards to indicate whether they wish to continue with meta admin rights, and it should be a fairly simple process to undertake and approve. Automatic to continue? No, many retiring stewards seem to be looking for a break or get back to their comfort zones. billinghurst sDrewth 04:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
It's interesting and I only raised it days ago because I'm pedantic at times and was rereading all the policies that could get me trouble. WM:MSR seemed ondd to me, because I considered myself active at meta and would "soon" be come a steward and that page said I also because admin and crat (full admin and crat because I was active at meta), but it also said that even if not active at meta I could still delete pages, rename users etc... It's not worded right :( fr33kman 05:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
on the other hand I support stewards beginning admins and crats during their terms as steward but I also think that they should not keep them when they leave as stewards unless they have been through or go through an RFA/B. Now as for global sysops that because stewards they should receive the global sysop and global rollback bits back upon leaving stewards. They are different roles and have different elections fr33kman 05:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Fr33kman. --WizardOfOz talk 16:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Dferg, I don't see the problem with them having to stand for elections if they're interested. They already passed a steward election, passing a Meta RFA is not a very high bar. Cbrown1023 talk 21:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
And I agree with Dferg and Cbrown1023 --Nick1915 - all you want 21:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Boring but per Nick, Dferg, Cbrown. I have no problem with (active) stewards having sysop rights on Meta, indeed I think it should be with the minimum fuss. However Meta RfAs are about the minimum fuss you can get. If it is appropriate/required - ask and it is highly likely to be granted. --Herby talk thyme 12:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, in my opinion it's the simplest solution. RfA takes only seven days. I think it shouldn't be an obstacle for someone who wants to be an administrator. mickit 14:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Per Meta–Steward relationship they are already sysops and crats. I can´t see a need for RfA every week for another steward. If they are active (and I think they are), why do we need this discussion? If somone of them would like to hold the flag after stewardship we can make a RfA or RfB. --WizardOfOz talk 21:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
As I think Kylu already explained, they are not "already sysops and crats". They already have the same level of access as sysops and bureaucrats because of their membership in the global group. However, they are really only supposed to perform actions related to their steward role, e.g. blocking a global vandal or globally renaming a user, with these tools. They are not really supposed to use the "tools" for other things if they have not had their access granted locally. Cbrown1023 talk 22:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
The issue is that literally the meaning of the wording is the issue. Am I an active member of meta? fully actice? If so, the wording of MSR means that right now I am, for the duration of my time as steward, a regular admin and crat on meta and can do any work, If I'm not active on meta then I can do uncontroversial thinks like renames, "page moves"?, deletions etc... :) I just think that if a rule exists it should make sense and comprehensive. No, I'm not a big fan of rules; asked simplewiki :P fr33kman 22:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
OK. Everyone of them is or has been a sysop or crat on one or more projects. We trust them globaly, and they already perform their actions here. The question now is just if we trust them not to delete a wrong page or to block a spamer localy :D And therefore we need a RfA every single week instead to grant the flag due the stewardship? IMO it is easier to grant the flag localy if they want and need it. I know that RfA on meta is not a big deal, but in this case it is not necessary. --WizardOfOz talk 22:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I tend to think that the only right that should come with steward is admin. Crat is not needed and can be left to the local metamedians. It does make sense to let stewards delete pages like user requested, close a local RFD, but I don't think it makes sense for a steward to decide local promotion consensus and possibly having to enact that. fr33kman 00:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

MSR is *way* outdated IMHO. That you have access to the tools doesn't mean that I can use them. Example: I do have access to admin tools at enwiki though I can't use them except on some cases. Some current stewards even are not interested in doing meta stuff so I keep thinking that if a steward is really interested in becoming a sysop here he should apply through the regular channels so that the *meta* community can voice its oppinion; as some of us had to do after or before becomming a steward. Start giving out admin flags just because "he's a steward" does not convince me. Sorry, -- Dferg ☎ talk 22:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a fine diference between content and coordination project where you are active as a steward and where you must use those tools. Just take a look at RC. I´m not talking about giving them flags just because "s/he´s steward", but about giving them flag due the stewardship if they want and need it (and this includes for me being active on meta). --WizardOfOz talk 22:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I still do not understand why we should be exempted to the process of RFX's just because we are stewards. Our work as stewards is basically to change user rights, deal with urgent situations and implement community consensus where local users can't do that themselves. That's not the case on meta with nearly 80 administrators. Stewards of course are free to deal with urgent situations like blocking a vandal, etc. but I still do think that if that steward is interested in performing regular maintenance on this site that steward must run an RfA as everybody has to do. -- Dferg ☎ talk 23:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, I´m out. Let us hold RfA every week for nothing (sysop shouldn´t be so a big deal). --WizardOfOz talk 23:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
@Dferg, I guess for me often it comes down to watching RC and seeing something that neds deleting or a user needing blocking, and having the buttons there but not being allowed to press them. I think it's daft. I know what to delete, who to block, you know I do, so ,..... :) But, I've personally decided to go the RFA route so I've got it for good. :) fr33kman 00:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
@Fr33kman: your move (opening the RfA) is the only correct one & the expected when you intend to regulary help in a project with a well stablished community and a body of administrators as meta has. I do not object if a steward that is not an administrator at meta blocks the odd vandal or deletes a plain vandalic page but regular maintenance and administration must be done for those explicity allowed by the community to do that task. And I do expect the community will be approving those users that knowns how meta works and its procedures. We are elected stewards for all wikimedia projects to do a specific set of tasks which may differ from what a meta admin has to do. I do not want to extend myself more because I think I've already make clear my point but with pleasure I'll reply or clarify any concerns you may have with my position. -- Dferg ☎ talk 12:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
The only thing I'm trying to point out here is that as it states as is, MSR says that if a non-meta admin/non-meta crat who is a steward and is also an active member of meta, then they have the right to act as such like any other local crat or sysop. Non meta-active stewards follow more stright rules. I'm just saying it need rewording. Personally I like to run for flags I want to use and resign those I don't. That's why I'm running an RFA here on meta rather than going with the wording of MSR, which I could have done. I spoke to Barras firstly however :) fr33kman 19:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
If stewards want a permanent adminship I would agree with Dferg that a standrard RfA the process to follow. I would see that there are incidental times when a steward could handle something on the primary server on which they manage stewardship matters, and a local rule that prohibits that ability seems specifically bureaucratic and against the intent of the overarching management process. It would seem a huge vote of no confidence for a steward to fail a vote, and going through a process solely due to tick boxes at the top of a system just seems pointless bureaucracy. billinghurst sDrewth 11:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I was unaware that we had so many stewards that we would have RfAs "every week"...
I was also unaware that we had stewards who didn't feel it was a courtesy to ask active communities if they were ok with them having rights locally. There is a difference between what anyone can do and what they should do to me. Had I known before the elections...
For me (active) stewards are welcome to have sysop rights (or 'crat ones) if they ask and the community such as it is agrees. --Herby talk thyme 14:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Herby I know your opinion from your RfB and I appriciate it like Dferg´s . But as I told there, that you can get the flag without a run trough a RfB. And it is quite similar with this thing here. I have nothing against RfAs from people who are coming from other projects and after a while request a sysop flag, but if I remember this is a second RfA for an steward in cuple of weeks. Sure it is fine if community can decide if they want a permanent flag, but due the stewardship I can´t see a problem with granting it temporary. It looks like we are holding our flags quite high waving them above those. But what do a sysop flag realy mean here? Is this a point where i can´t trust someone who have more community support than me? I see it like a fight against vandals, and if i can´t trust a brother in arms, who should i trust than? Even if we take a look on the RfXs, the most voters are community members with equivalent flags (sysops, crats, GS, GR, stews). I´m not saying that we should grant the flag for everyone without discussion, but for those stews who needs them, why not handle it like RfBs? We are not a content project where a flag can have more influence. --WizardOfOz talk 16:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Dferg and Herby. Make a simple request and Meta community decides. Because have stewards not active here. Alex Pereira falaê 19:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
My opinion on the matter is that it seems to be rather counter-productive. I believe Stewards should be granted free access to sysops for the duration of their term. Stewards are approved by the entire community and have the highest level of trust afforded to volunteers. Going through an RfA, for example recently with Fr33kman is rather counter-productive and inefficient. Of course they can locate a local sysop if they needed to, but they shouldn't have to. There's not a lot of stewards to begin with, and they handle similar requests during the course of normal operations. I understand the point about having some community support on Meta but stewards are by far one of the most active group on Meta, they are a big part of that community, if anyone has any doubts about any of their actions, a sysop flag would be irrelevant to the steward. Theo10011 17:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC) 17:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
On the other hand a number of them are not active here and know little about Meta - why should they have rights. Asking takes no effort and legitimises actions.--Herby talk thyme 18:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Well there was the steward confirmation for all the elected steward that happened with the recent election. If there was someone inept at using the tools there should have been some concerns brought up there. Unless you have someone particular in mind, any steward can learn about Meta polices just like the new stewards learn steward policies, they prob. can do much more damage as a steward than a sysop on Meta if they screw up :) Besides that, I don't understand how an elected steward can be trusted with the same tools on hundreds of other wikis but their activity on Meta would be under scrutiny. You might recall the discussion above, Meta is not a content-project per say, there aren't a lot of policies and guidelines for local actions. I understand to some degree about community support for admin rights that's why I only called it counter-productive, they would have to wait a week to go through an RfA and subject the rest of the community to vote for already elected stewards. Maybe there can be a shorter/smaller confirmation process than the regular RfA for stewards? Theo10011 18:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
@Herby, and if they are not active on Meta as stewards, do we think that the granting them admin rights locally is going to change that behaviour? I wouldn't have thought so. If it does, the expectation is that like any other admin their use would be within the policies and guidelines; then if not within guidelines, like any other admin who went feral the bit can be taken away. Re legitimate, these are stewards who have been legitimately elected by the WMF community, so having this discussion makes it legitimate.

The bit is about security and access to tools, if the concern is that we have stewards going feral, or at the risk of going feral with access to tools, then let that discussion be brought forward. At this point in time the elephant in the room is about protecting the patch or they cannot be trusted. There are numbers of stewards undertaking requests for adminship (nothing above) and that level of tool access seems both reasonable and practicable. To me the nay sayers should demonstrate why it is neither reasonable nor practicable. billinghurst sDrewth 23:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Not quite sure I get what you are saying here but I'll take a stab at an answer.
If they are not active they don't need the rights & that is fine. "Rights" are tools to be used so folk have to be active to have any need for them - they are not some kind of badge of office/medallion whatever.
The issue with stewards having explicit rights on Meta is exactly the same as them having them on any other wiki I would think. They should ask. They do on Commons, en wp etc etc - why would Meta be any different? As a general rule I would support stewards who find having local rights useful - they tend to do a good job and have sufficient respect for the community to ask. Why should others who don't need rights and don't ask get it ? --Herby talk thyme 09:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, so can they just ask, it be noted that they are asking and just let a bureaucrat do it. The full approval process is about trust and suitability, election stewardship is that process. billinghurst sDrewth 10:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
We'll agree to differ at that point I think. --Herby talk thyme 10:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Herby, you are making a big distinction here comparing Meta to commons and en.wp. Stewards are a big part of Meta, its where they reside and where they handle all their requests. Some could argue Meta is their home, they are a big part of the community. I understand if stewards ask for sysop rights and ask the local community, but they shouldn't go through the same procedure as any other candidate. They are already given the highest level of trust by the community as stewards, that has to count for something. Theo10011 17:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
True that we handle our requests here, but for handling steward requests we do not need sysop rights at all. We have a number of non-sysop stewards that handles the job as well as others with sysop rights do. I repeat: we are voted for something very different a regular sysop do. Asking hurts nobody and legitimates actions as Herby said above. Stewards are free to deal with urgent situations and cross-wiki issues, but regular administration tasks must be left to those elected for doing that task... locally. If a steward is interested in doing regular administration in meta he/she must ask using the proper and stablished channels the community has created. Thanks, -- Dferg ☎ talk 23:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
For the record: I agree with Dferg. Wutsje 23:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I think the next step, if someone wants to have a next step, is to take a community vote here on Meta to see what consensus would be among metans. It seems somewhat divided on this thread. (Is there a better demonym for meta residents?) Killiondude 02:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Meta-Wikimedians. Cbrown1023 talk 20:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Protest

Latest comment: 13 years ago15 comments10 people in discussion

I'm sorry but I can not stand anymore. I do want to complain about the extremelly rush closures on RFXS being carried out on this wiki. The 24 hours are 24 hours, the 7 days are 7 days and those times must be respected. For example: this RfB has been closed about 15 hours before the stablished time per policy at Meta:Bureaucrats which is simply not aceptable and it is not not only because the extreme time difference, it is because any single oppose within the period crashes the RfB and therefore a 1 week RfB has to be started. Where is the rush? Is the building on fire? C'mon... policies are to be respected. I wouldn't complain for minutes, seconds, etc; but 15 hours... that's simply not acceptable. What about if I wanted to object? What about if somebody else wanted to object? I'd hope that the closing 'crat of that discussion reverts so that the discussion can finish within the appropiate time periods and I also hope that this situation does not repeat again. -- Dferg ☎ talk 19:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Surprisingly enough, this problem was present three years ago, when I got the 'crat bit. Received a nice brainwashing back then for closing RfAs three minutes before the appropriate time. Not sure why nobody does that now. vvvt 19:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I admit I wasn't aware of the 24 hour policy; I was under the impression that the user requirements and bureaucrat endorsement requirements were the only rules in place for RfBs. I'll revert if it really matters, and I'll keep this in mind for future, but the request already more than met the perquisites for success. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Per Dferg - policy is policy is policy. It does no harm to follow it (& yes I closed something early once and it was pointed out to me in no uncertain terms and I agreed I was wrong). --Herby talk thyme 07:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Complaining about RfXes being closed few minutes or even half an hour early is too bureaucratic, but I don't like crats closing RfXes so early. I agree with Dferg here. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 11:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
So do I. Perhaps we should re-open this request and wait until 24 hours officially expire. It would show that we really respect the policies. I know it sounds too bureaucratic and that some people will find it unnecessary, but closure wasn't done well and this is the way to correct it. Juliancolton admitted that he wasn't aware of the 24 hour policy. BTW, we all make mistakes and this is not so uncommon. I think that Julian himself should re-open RfB, so we can close this topic   mickit 11:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
On nlwiki (my homewiki) are RfA's always closed within the exact amount of time, mostly even longer. I agree that we must respect the rules. Trijnstel 12:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Btw, I've never seen this request, so that was really way too fast. Trijnstel 12:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Somewhat bizarre when you have 'crats who don't know relevant 'crat policies I guess ... :( --Herby talk thyme 12:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Come on, Herby, don't be so rigorous :) mickit 12:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what to tell you. I admitted I made a mistake, didn't try to justify it, and offered to remedy it. I'm a bureaucrat on three projects, and while I try to keep as up-to-date as possible with all the relevant policies on the aforementioned projects, sometimes things like that slip by. Now I know. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Off with his head!!! Killiondude 19:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello everybody. I have left a message on Julian's talk page but I think he has not seen it at the moment. As Micki said, everybody has already committed an error. But I also agree with Dferg that rules and polices should be respected, so I don't see any problem that Julian re-opens my request, and even revert rights changes, if he judges it necessary. Anyway I won't use this status before this affair has been resolved. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I will reopen the request for next 15 hours following this discussion. Flag will be removed if there will be objections and if 7 days RfB starts. Untill then, Quentinv57 will not use his crat flag as he promises above. I cant imagine that this will change something on votings result, but it will strictly follow the policy. --WizardOfOz talk 16:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Fine for me - And just for info this is not a protest strictly directed to fellow bureaucrat Juliancolton which I had the pleausure to work with. For some time now times are not being respected properly IMHO, and we should try our best to follow the community policies as much as we can. This is intended to be a reminder for all current and future bureaucrats. -- Dferg ☎ talk 19:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Flood flag

Latest comment: 13 years ago31 comments15 people in discussion

Hi, I wasn't sure where to bring this up so I'm doing it here and WM:RFH. As it currently stands, Admins can assign flood flag to only themselves and bureaucrat can remove it from anyone. Bureaucrat instead assign bot flags locally and remove it as needed. There is however, no one to assign the flood flag locally, a request that is probably directed to stewards. I would like to ask if it's possible to change the user group rights so that flood-flag requests could be handled locally by the Meta community. There are no shortages of admins or crats currently who can oversee such request as needed, there is little need to clog up requests to stewards for this. Thanks. Theo10011 17:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. --Erwin 17:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I also agree, we trust crats to give bot flags, which will give a lot more rights than needed, Special:ListGroupRights. The flood flag is simply Be treated as an automated process (bot). Currently admins can add/grant this right for themselves, so we need to decide whether we should allow admins to give the right to others, or crats. The Helpful One 17:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
No problems for me. But it will be better to use a bot for non-sysop massive operations. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Let's do this. I've long wondered why admins or crats can't add/remove the flag from others as well. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm for oppose here and strongly as I see no need and, really, non-sysop edits must be visible to the community unless specifically approved. However, if there's consensus for doing this, I'd say that only bureaucrats should be able to do it. But I'm still opposing. Regards, -- Dferg ☎ talk 18:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Dferg, the point here isn't to give flood flag or not to give flood flag. It is already being done. If it is not correct to give flood flag to a non-sysop, then I don't understand why stewards are doing it. Personally, I don't have any complaint about the previous right changes made by stewards; I just don't see a reason for they keep doing something that could be done by a Meta 'crat, since we are talking about local tasks.” Teles (Talk @ C S) 19:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I think I've never granted a flood flag to anybody but to myself when performing massive actions [to be checked]; and I also do not like the idea of stewards granting flood flag to other users because this is a tool designed to administrators and for administrator/steward use only. If you don't understand it, I don't either. The question is: I trust an administrator/steward to use it correctly, because the whole community has trusted him for that, as well for blocking users, deleting pages and other tasks. I trust a bot because a discussion has been held and its tasks have been approved by the whole community too. I just don't like the idea of everybody asking for a flood flag because... "I can ask for it". If a user wants to perform massive actions then he should use an approved bot or simply do it slowly. The tool has also a room for abuse from my point of view. CheckUser and Oversight are also local tasks and are granted by stewards too so that argument is not valid from my point of view too. If ain't broken, don't try to fix it. The wiki is definitelly not going to die because somebody is doing something and its edits are visible in Special:RecentChanges. We've lived with it since our start and nothing bad has passed, au contraire, the community has more oversight which is good. This seems to be a solution in search of a problem, really. -- Dferg ☎ talk 21:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
The flood flag is never meant to be permanent, and it does help keep the RC not spammed up. This is hardly either a security risk - everyone can see the user getting the flag, and I assume that we trust the crats here to assign it well. I really don't understand why you are getting worked up over someone's edits being hidden from the RC for a couple of minutes while they perform a spammy task. Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The decision to have a flood flag has already been made, flood flag is already enabled on Meta. This is not about choosing to have it or not. There is however, a gap here, where crats can remove it but no one can assign it locally. This also brings up a related point, some of the stewards chose to go through an RfA after being elected because they didn't feel comfortable taking actions without the community's consent and support since meta has its own community. But requesting the flood flag from stewards undermines the community here, if the options is enabled it should be handled locally is why I raised this point. I am ok if it's assigned for crats or admins, just as long as it is local, stewards are busy with a lot of requests to keep an eye on Meta and see who is doing what. There are trusted users, and staff members who are working on Meta for things related to the fundraiser, committees, policy etc. they would easily destroy RC every time, which makes it slightly hard for us to keep an eye on vandals. This is just about simplifying things a bit. Theo10011 15:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

  • I didn't read all here yet, but I don't think this is necessary at all. People need to less worry about something like flooded RCs. Sometimes stewards use flodd-flag to hide their right changes from RCs. I already said this on IRC and do it now here: No right change should ever be hidden. Even if it looks uncontroversial, any right change can be controversial. If people are worried about a spoiled RC page, look at enwiki's and re-think. -Barras 15:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
The policy actually only covers self-use by administrators. Requesting a flood flag from stewards is outside of the current policy. If we want the flag to be assignable to others, it would make sense to have it granted by local bureaucrats. Jafeluv 15:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
If someone wants some kind of flood flag, bureaucrats can always assign a bot flag which has the same effect after all. There is no reason why crats should be able to assign flood while they could just temporary assign bot. And then again: Don't worry about the RCs, no one cares if it is spoiled for 5 mins. -Barras 15:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Agreed and again, if ain't broken, don't try to fix it.-- Dferg ☎ talk 19:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Flood flag is for exceptional use only and probably "personal" too. If RC gets bolloxed for a bit that is not an issue and better than allowing unseen edits unless there is a real reason. --Herby talk thyme 17:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
    Also agreed. -- Dferg ☎ talk 19:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
  • its already available, crats can assign the bot flag whenever they need to, this is not about protecting or destroying the RC. It's about handling it locally. I am wondering why we have the option for crats to remove the flag, either they shouldn't be able to remove it, or if they can, they should also be able to assign it as well. Bot flag works the same, so it's not a big issue if we don't have that option, but going to stewards for a local flag where there is no shortage of active admins and crats doesn't seem very efficient, that's all. Theo10011 18:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
    Steward actions are local and they are part of this community, but that's not the point. The reason of bureaucrats being able to remove the flood flag to others, but not able to assign it to anybody except to themselves has its reason in what Herby said above: this flag is for exceptional and personal use only. We have that option to remove that flag when an admin has forgotten to remove it or if the admin is abusing the flag. Frankly, I do not like stewards granting flood flags to anybody. That shouldn't been happening as outside of policy. If we ever really need to hid someone's edits from the RC we have plently of bureaucrats who can temporary assign the bot flag to that user which has the same effect. Thanks, -- Dferg ☎ talk 19:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
    The bot flag also adds autoconfirmed, autopatrol, noratelimit, suppressredirect, nominornewtalk, skipcaptcha, apihighlimits and writeapi rights to the account unnecessarily. The Helpful One 19:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
    If someone takes the decision to allow someone to hide their edits from the normal RC-feed, then they are surely trustworthy enough to not abuse the rights you mentioned above. -Barras 19:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Dferg, Barras, and Herby -- I don't see the real need for this. There's nothing wrong with IRC being flooded for a little bit. People have gotten too worried about that lately for no reason. We survived before there was a flood flag anywhere, we can survive the few times a non-admin does something spammy. Cbrown1023 talk 02:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
If anything comes out of this discussion, I think we need to re-iterate the policy of giving the flood or bot flag by stewards or crats to non-admin users who are going to make mass edits. Either we allow this or we don't allow it - but currently there is no policy (AFAIK) which states either way, so we need to make it clear. The Helpful One 13:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
We don't need a policy for everything, wiki is already bureaucratic enough. Just trust the crats/stewards to use their common sense when granting rights without much discussion for it. I don't need a rule for everything and I'm surely not going to look up every time some weird pages before doing something. And before we make a policy, we need to discuss who we should discuss on who to create a discussion for a new policy </sarcasm>. -Barras 13:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Barras, Dferg and Herby. If there is realy such work which can be maded in background (and from time to time there is), it´s not big deal for an expirienced and trusted user to aks a stew for a flood or crat for a botflag. The whole meta community is not that way beaurocratic like elswhere. The most contributors are people who know what they are doing, and i´m sure that the stew or crat who sets the flag will follow the work of flaged user. --WizardOfOz talk 19:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • it makes sense to permit flood granting/removing to meta admins rather than stewards. Meta is an active community and can handle it locally. We've done it on simplewiki and it works very well. fr33kman 23:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
    If Meta doesn't care whether RC gets flooded or not, could someone explain why this block was set? For what is worth, I don't see why crats/admins can't be trusted to set this flag, but maybe that's just me... Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 08:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    I think I complained about this action somewhere, don't know if on-wiki or off-wiki. But this is an example what we should not do. Blocking for flooding the Rcs is somewhat stupid and should never be done. -Barras 09:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    Per Barras and not for the first time - bloody ridiculous block. --Herby talk thyme 11:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    Good evening everybody. I just seen that one block I commit has just been qualified as "somewhat stupid" and as a "bloody ridiculous block". Please just look at the context before being so offensive : Beria was doing really massive editions (more than 40 by minute, for sure my bot is slower). Nothing wrong with that at all, I will never forbid someone to contribute. I have send a message on her talk page to ask her to request a flag, and she did not answered and continue to edit pages. In fact she just done 6 edits and she was finished but I was not knowing that. So I temporarily blocked to stop this flood, and I immediately go on IRC to contact her. We have discuss about it, she has not complain about this block and has just done that because she requested a flood flag and sysops have not handled this request. Please note that 7 minutes after, the block was unset. Please note also that I've seen dozens of blocks because someone was flooding or a bot was functioning without a flag, and that with no warnings. So what I done was perhaps not really so ridiculous or stupid you said.
    What we may conclude of that is only that if sysops were having the right to grant this flag, the request of Beria would surely have been done quickly and she won't have flooded. And by consequence, I won't have block. So to my mind it's a good move, even if it's better to do massive edits with a registered and approved bot account. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Quentin: (more than 40 by minute, for sure my bot is slower)
Your bot is slower than a girl using her hands and FF. You should have ashame of yourself :)
And for what it worth: I have no problem with Quentinv57 block. If i had saw a user doing the same thing i would probably did the same (even because he didn't know about my request for flood flag). Béria Lima msg 20:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, my bot does sleep five seconds between each edits. Experience show me that it is better if a script error occurs (you can't monitor a bot if edits are faster than you can check them) ;). -- Quentinv57 (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


Request management and bureaucracy

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello

I am one of wikimedia users persian I want to apply

Please please help me To manage the Persian section Ali ringo 14:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello Ali ringo. How can we help you? —Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 18:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Meta talk:Administrators#Wikimedia content projects... --თოგო (D) 12:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Removing admin-on-other-project requirement for Meta admins

Latest comment: 13 years ago24 comments9 people in discussion
Moved from Meta:Babel

I think that it is time to remove the rule that Meta admin has to be admin on some other project. Meta community is now mature enough to decide on the basis of user's contribution to Meta, not to other projects. Other thoughts? --Millosh 13:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

If ain't broken, don't try to fix it. :) —Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 13:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Also, it was proposed but recently strongly rejected. So, no, thanks. One of the things that works fine here and does not need to be removed. —Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 13:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Though this is obviously a massive conflict of interest, the RfA system is broken if it is preventing an otherwise fine candidate from passing. Even the opposers on my RfA recognize that there is nothing wrong with what I do on meta, only that I don't have a sysop flag on what they consider to be a content project, and I'd call that broken. Ajraddatz (Talk) 13:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm a little confused. That doesn't seem like enough people to form consensus to declare various projects off the table for adminship especially when it was just a poll. Who changed it over? Also, the poll shows that if we say a non "content" project doesn't count that global sysops would count, which means that Ajraddatz clearly qualifies. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that a similar discussion is going on here. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I've always understood Meta as a meta-project — existing for and about the other Wikimedia wikis, not as a content project to itself. In this view it is a community of communities, rather than its own community. I think this is why Meta administrators must be administrators elsewhere. I don't think it's a question of project maturity; the project was never not mature in this respect.

I'm not sure whether this principle should be enshrined as policy, but as a principle — that Meta is not its own little island community — I tend to support it. —Pathoschild 00:56:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

None of that is an argument for a content wiki adminship requirement for an RfA here. We can be a "community of communities" and still have an RfA process which focusses on what the user does on meta, rather than what the user does elsewhere. Ultimately, people at RfA here are requesting adminship here, not on another community, and even though meta is a coordination site for communities I still see no valuable reason to have the content wiki adminship requirement. Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I think it is unfair that someone at, say, Wikiversity can get adminship with less than 10 people supporting (or, as of right now, have indefinite "mentorship" adminship without community approval and have adminship without any community support) and qualify for Meta adminship whereas someone who gains globalsysop status here with this level of response is unqualified. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't understand the excitement to change things for the sake of changing them and see this as a solution looking for a problem. That said I reafirm my position that it's perfectly good and appropiate that candidates must have content adminship before applying here and I oppose this change. I likewise don't understand why we're driving rules to the absurd extreme. It's widely known that content projects are Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wiktionary, Wikisource, Wikiquote and Wikiversity. The rest of the projects are not. We've never got any kind of discussion about that. This reminds me to some judgements from the Constitutional Court that ends saying absurdities like that the black is white under certain circumstances. Best regards. —Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 11:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
    Which Constitutional Court? Ruslik 11:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
    Please stay on-topic. Thanks. Mine is a comparation. Trust it or discard it. —Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 11:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
    Why is it good and acceptable for candidates to have a content wiki adminship before applying here? You say these things, and then never give any supporting evidence. As for me, I really don't think that this is a solution looking for a problem - excluding me, there have been three admins on meta who haven't had content wiki adminship. All of them do/have done a fantastic job. Adminship is a toolkit, the RfA process is meant to allow trusted users access to the toolkit. With the current system, it doesn't do that all the time, and instead we end up with people who have little/no need for the tools becoming admins, and people with need for the tools potentially not becoming admins. This means that the RfA is ineffective in its own universe, since it fails to complete its primary purpose, to allow trusted users access to the tools. Adminship shouldn't be this big of a deal - it's a toolbox, not a trophy for content wiki admins. Ajraddatz (Talk) 13:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
    MarcoAurelio, I think you crossed the line. 1. Your response to Ruslik0, a Steward, was inappropriately hostile especially when the question was pertinent to understanding what you were saying. 2. You claim it is for the "sake of changing" when it was pointed out there is an obvious problem and an absurdity - that people with only a few supports can get an adminship on Wikiversity (or get adminship without any community support as in the case of Abd) yet can run for Meta adminship while someone who obviously got globalsysops with far more supports is not qualified. 3. You are very hostile and made your view clear multiple places, yet so have others that you have dismissed. There are many, many experienced users, including admin, bureaucrats, and Stewards who have stated that the policy does not work. Your failure to acknowledge that is extremely disrespectful and does you no favors. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
    "Change for the sake of change" is what a wiki is all about, this isn't software development where such a slogan is applicable. It is editable for a reason. It is very inconvenient for me (and the admins I bug) to keep bugging admins to make edits to protected pages, particularly templates where I could be making said edits directly had I been an admin here. Why do we expect people to be admins on some other content wiki here on meta? Is this to make sure they are experienced? If so how is it help to ANYONE if someone happens to be an admin on a very small wiki with fewer than 500 edits (whom is also the only contributor on said wiki more or less) who would qualify to apply unlike the wikimedians who have over 50k edits on multiple projects but do not currently have an admin flag elsewhere for whatever the reason. Such a person would not be promoted probably. The point of be admin elsewhere rule was originally to reduce the number of applications at the early stages of meta as it would have been overwhelming back then. I see problems making this edit on mediawiki namespace as I make this edit for example such as links to licenses or terms of service not being plain links. Adminship is no big deal do not make a big deal out of it. -- とある白い猫 chi? 07:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
  • It's quite annoying to see this coming up again just a few months after the last discussion (and again, with personal examples). This is not worth saying much, I hope the proposal will be withdrawn or the discussion closed soon; the arguments can be easily reversed if one wants to.
    1. Nothing proves that the current system is broken. Its rationale is very clear, Pathos explained it.
    2. The argument that RfA discussion itself should be the filter is nonsense: following this reasoning we should remove all requirements everywhere, but it's just a matter of cost vs. benefits; we don't want to worry too much about RfAs, which can drain a lot of energies. Many projects have edit-count or "seniority" requirements (such as 1000 edits, 6 months).
    3. This doesn't make it a "trophy for content wiki admins"; it's actually the opposite, because it prevents (hypothetical) candidates who seek Meta adminship as a trophy without even being sysops elsewhere.
    4. If being elected administrator on a content project is (unfairly) easy as someone suggests, then the requirement can't be considered excessive. Nemo 20:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
    In regards to the RfA discussion filter nonsense, that's why we have snow closures. I personally don't feel too drained after needing to vote in two requests, and I'm sure that the local 'crats don't feel too terrible after needing to archive the occasional request. Ajraddatz (Talk) 14:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
    This doesn't address my point: are you suggesting to remove all requirements? By the way, we probably don't have snow closures at all. Nemo 09:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
    Yes, meta has done SNOW closures before. Ajraddatz (Talk) 15:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
    Very few, and perhaps they shouldn't have happened. They're certainly not encouraged. You didn't answer my question, anyway. Nemo 20:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
    No, I'm not suggesting that the other requirements be removed, because those requirements are related to the user on meta and not the user on other projects. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
    So I refer you back to my point 2. Nemo 13:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I see no need at all to amend this - Meta has no need of extra admins (indeed plenty of them do little and stuff gets done just fine). Bear in mind a Meta admin can play around with the SBL which affects every wiki - not something I would want folk who didn't know what they are doing having access to. --Herby talk thyme 09:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Does someone without sysop tools on a Wikimedia content wiki necessarily not know what they're doing? A user who is not a local admin anywhere can still request global sysop here, and global sysop tools are far easier to abuse (either intentionally or not) than an edit to the spam blacklist. Ajraddatz (Talk) 13:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: It makes sense to me that a candidate should have some experience with administration of another wiki. That said, I don't think a rigid rule that they are literally an administrator, or that the other wiki(s) be Wikimedia projects, is necessary. If somebody wants to lend a hand here as an administrator, and has extensive experience on Wikimedia projects, and has been a longtime admin on (say) WikiTravel or a Wikia wiki, I'd say they should be able to make their case. So, I'd support changing the current language from requiring adminship elsewhere on Wikimedia, to recommending it. So that if a candidate does not have it, they have a little more explaining to do, to persuade us that the admin flag here is appropriate. -Pete F 15:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Rule for voting

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Here is the current rule for being allowed to vote: "All editors with an account on Meta, at least one active account on any Wikimedia project, and a link between the two, may participate in any request and give their opinion of the candidate."

Here is what we use as language for Steward elections: "have a global account (or an account on Meta with user page linked to your main wiki, and a link to your meta account from your home wiki user page);

The current language does not recognize SUL account as an alternative to a matrix (i.e. linking your accounts). I propose that the language be changed to be more inline with what the Steward election pages state.

Proposed language: "All editors with a global account (or an account on Meta with user page linked to your main wiki, and a link to your meta account from your home wiki user page) may participate in any request and give their opinion of the candidate."

This would clarify any problems and be easier for dealing with eligibility in the future. It would also be more consistent. - Ottava Rima (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference in that the old wording requires people to have an account in another project as well, while in the proposed wording any meta-only account with SUL enabled would be eligible. Tbh I don't think it makes much difference, though, considering that the old wording only requires an account and doesn't set any requirements for edit count or the age of the account. In any case, a global account should certainly be considered a link for the purposes of the policy even with the current wording. Jafeluv 21:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archives/2011&oldid=5337594"
Return to the project page "Requests for adminship/Archives/2011".