Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 133

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Unbundle The Tools 1.1 protected pages 2 irc, or other forms of off-wiki communication 3 New global userright 4 Protection level 5 Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Apollo1986 needs closing

Unbundle The Tools

This has probably been addressed in the past. Before I was even a twinkle in Wikipedia’s eye. (No pun intended concerning Twinkle. However, a question I need to ask, for my own curiosity, have we ever considered unbundling the tools? And if so, why haven’t we? There are many candidates for Adminisreative positions that make excellent cases for specific needs for specific tools. The ability to protect or unprotect is a great example in cases of Template work. However, with a particular user, there may be legitimate concerns with regards that along with that specific button, they also get the ability to Block and Delete. Why can’t we just give that user that particular tool. Thanks for listening. ShoesssS ^Talk 21:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Why would we, though? Surely if you cannot trust a user not to use the tools they don't need, they shouldn't be given any at all? Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 21:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I can think of several admins I could trust to protect a page but I could not trust to block anyone. I can think of several admins I could trust to block users but I could not trust to close an XfD. Some admins I could trust to protect pages, but I could not trust them to view deleted material. I really see no reason to give one user all 26 tools at once. Shoessss may be interested in looking over the recent Adminship poll for talk about unbundling the tools. --Pixelface (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a very sensible idea, but let me be the first to draw your attention to perennial proposals. Expecting administrators to voluntary relinquish some of their powers to lesser beings sounds a bit like asking a turkey to vote for Thansgiving anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

My first response is why wouldn’t we? Every individual has special talents! An individual who is exceptional talented in code, may have some maturity issues. Do we discourage that particular individual, who could be a great benefit to Wikipedia in working on Templates or other matters concerning code, by forcing them to go through the Rfa process to gain the tool to protect or unprotect? In turn, we force them to go trough with the Rfa, where they are shot down because they do not have “..enough main space edits – or that they are not a content builder” causing their Rfa to fail. Thereby, discouraging the candidate who moves on to greener pastures. To me this is not only a net loss to Wikipedia in that we lost this talent. But we now have one more opponent criticizing Wikipedia. Again, just a question. ShoesssS ^Talk 21:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You didn't address my issue particularly well there, i'm afriad. I'm aware there are several people who could benefit from using certain tools more than others but why do we need to split them up? Why can't they just have them all anyway? If you can't trust them with all of them, I believe you can't trust them with any of them. In the meantime, they still have the ability to ask an administrator to do the task for them. Perhaps that is just my opinion. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 21:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think un-bundleing the tools for each persons best area is sort of like the Army letting a guy with no legs join up because he's good with his hands.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 21:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Strong oppose. There are plenty of admin powers that no-one in their right mind would bother going through a "Request for..." process for, but nonetheless are a valuable tool (WP:Requests for ability to hide bulk edits from RecentChanges, anyone?); plus, plenty of admins rarely use one or the other of the powers (I performed a grand total of four blocks between January and April this year), but there's no reason to deny the ability to do so. Of the two "big" powers, I find it impossible to picture the editor I'd trust with a delete but not a block button, or to delete but not to undelete articles. The only current admin power I'd be happy to see split off would be a separate WP:Requests for ability to edit through autoblocks process. — iridescent 22:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:Requests for the ability to see deleted pages because I'm a nosey person would be a little tough to pass.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 22:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You've perhaps never heard of Douglas Bader? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with MF, While this is something that I think should be done, I don't see it happening... but not because of admins protecting their power... but because we are too big a beaucracy to get it to work. There's a reason why the founding fathers set us up as a republic and not a true democracy. But I would have no problem giving some of the tools to people... CapitalR, one of my former candidates, didn't need all of the tools. He only needed one or two. Take some of those tools and issue them piecemeal... and then have a full package for others.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The wikiworld didnt collapse when rollback was unbundled. Would it collapse if, say, the ability to see unwatched pages was also unbundled? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think that is one ability (there may be others, like the ability to edit through autoblocks) that should probably just be bundled with rollback instead of the admin bit. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, the thing about rollback is that it's just a faster way of "undoing" an edit. It's not an administrator function anymore than using Twinkle or Huggle. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a faster way of undoing a number of consecutive edits, as you obviously know. But I agree with you, so why was there such resistance to unbundling rollback do you think? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Most likely not, but what would happen if the block button was unbundled? Just playing Devil's Advocate. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd ask a different question. How many users would want to have access to the block button? Not me, for sure. A very good case can clearly be made for keeping some functions in the hands of a trusted priesthood. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there's an allure associated with the block button. It's arguably the most powerful. Unfortunately, Kurt is right about a few eggs who are power hungry I guess. Nevertheless, I myself have a different question. How easy would it be to unbundle the tools? technically I mean. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The most powerful and therefore potentially the most damaging. In my WikiUptopia an RfA would be all about trusting an editor with the power to block other users. All the rest is just housekeeping so far as I can see. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Technically, much much easier than it will be to firmly establish the consensus that doing so is a good idea. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I long ago gave up any hope of establishing a consensus to do anything on wikipedia. Other than to defend the staus quo that is, of course. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me express what I am trying to get at in a different way. Here stateside, we have the term Doctor. With that term, there are certain perceived privileges and rights that go along with that title. One such privilege is the right that any individual with a PhD,, in any given field, has the right to be addressed by the term Doctor. The term Doctor, in and of itself bestows the impression of expert – knowledgeable – speaks with authority – counselor. However, in real life we qualify what that title of Doctor may mean in any given field. Medical – Judicial – English – Theology - Engineering – Education - Veterinary and so on and so on. In addition, within any given field we restrict the tools that are bestowed on any individual, with the term of Doctor, to tools that are appropriate to their field. The person with a Doctorate in Architectural Engineering may certify structural drawings on buildings, but not neuter your pet. Likewise, a Medical Doctor can prescribe medication to ease that pulled muscle but cannot argue a case before a court of law. However, here at Wikipedia, once bestowed with the term Administrator you get all the tools, to use as you see fit. My feelings, are that if we unbundle the tools – we would not need the expert -of – all –trades to be qualified for Administrator, but allow qualified individuals in a given field access to the tools that they may need to be more efficient and effective, without going through the process of a full blown Rfa. In my mind, a win-win to all parties. ShoesssS ^Talk 23:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this proposal. Think about how it would have to work: either we set an RFA type process for each of the unbundled rights, or we give them to autoconfirmed users, or users who have passed some other arbitrary milestone. With the first, the proposal is to set a whole set of new processes along the lines of this one, which most here agree that if not broken, is severely deficient. Like Iridescent, I couldn't really see where I could trust an editor to delete but not block, and the same goes for many of the other admin tools. I see the other choice as totally unworkable. Imagine User:Grawp being able to move to page delete vandalism, or being able to avoid the title blacklist. All this would do is dramatically increase the workload for the admins with the lot. And probably the rest of us also. Kevin (talk) 00:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The whole thing suggests a bundle of weird scenario's. Q: "Hey, you're an admin! Could you take a look at the edit war that's going on over at Steve?" A: "Oh, sorry, I'm just a Delete and Un-Protect admin, I can't help." or Q: "Could you block for that guy that keeps vandalising Jim? Oh, and make it an auto-block, I think that IP might be his." A: "I would, but I only passed the un-block RfA. I'm going for the semi-protection RfA next week! Maybe even full protection, in a few months."--Koji†Dude ^(C) 00:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Barring the sarcasm, no it doens't. We could select a few tools that people could use that would be helpful that don't require RfA's that we could trust Admins to authorize.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 00:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

We could do that, seeing that requests for rollback seems to work smoothly. But which rights could we give that would be useful in reducing the overall workload of administrators? The ones that should absolutely not be handed out are for me: delete, block, and protect/edit protected. Unless templates etc are split off. What is left doesn't seem worth creating a process to give rights for. It would be interesting to know which tools people seeking adminship are most interested in. Kevin (talk) 01:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me, but isn't it rather naive to suppose that all of the people seeking adminship care one whit about the tools? Wouldn't you agree that it's at least as likely that a significant number only care about the admin status? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite possibly - hence my last statement. Kevin (talk) 02:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I cannot think of one admin tool that needs less trust that others(other than rollback which is already separate). Lets keep them together. _{1 != 2} 02:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Judgment matters more than trust. Blocks, page protections and deletions all generate drama. Then there are tangential issue like the naming - we'd care far less about civility if admins were called janitors (and saw themselves that way). There are a few admin action that does require a higher level of trust than the others. Certain page deletions (like Ed Poor's deletion of VFD can crash Wikipedia). And then there's one admin action that could send us to the database dumps. Per BEANS, I'm not going to talk about it further. But yes, there are things that require a greater level of trust than others, IMO. Guettarda (talk) 03:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I definitely agree that most of the tools (blocks, protection, etc...) require trust but viewing unwatched pages? That seems like something beyond trivial in comparison. Adam McCormick (talk) 04:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

protected pages

Personally, IMHO, the number one tool that should be granted right now in the same mode that rollback is granted, is the ability to edit protected pages. The number one reason why I see people getting ALL of the tools when they only need one is to work on protected pages---this means people who work on templates or other places that are typically protected. This "power" doesn't grant any power to block/protect or otherwise endanger offending others.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 00:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

But if you don't have enough trust in them to protect or block, why trust them to edit protected pages?--Koji†Dude ^(C) 00:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Either you trust someone to not abuse tools or your don't. Editing protected pages can do plenty of damage to NPOV, one of our primary goals. Rollback is an exception because it can't do anything that can't be done without rollback. _{1 != 2} 01:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that analagous to asking if you don't trust someone with a gun, why trust them with a spoon? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not. I am saying that just because someone can be trusted with foam rubber(rollback) does not mean they should have sharp objects(protection, blocking, editing protected pages). _{1 != 2} 01:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Balloonman makes a good point. Yes, all of the tools carry with them some responsibility, but, let's face it, some tools are more "deleterious" to the project when misused than others. Editing protected pages is useful (and probably the less damaging in the general sense) for users who wish to do no harm. However, block, delete and protect can "do more harm" even if unintentional more often than not. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that it is less harmful when abused. Editing protected pages gives a direct advantage over other users. Yes it can be reversed, but so can the other tools. Consider the fact that anyone with this tool in a bad mood can fuck with the main page or templates that appear in thousands of articles like {{fact}}. We should keep the tools together because we need trust and sense for all of them. _{1 != 2} 02:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There is only one tool that can't be reversed, the block button. Everything else is just housekeeping. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

We actually do have an unblock button which does reverse a block, very handy. _{1 != 2} 02:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Your comment simply proves to me that you ought not to have access to the block button if you believe that the damage it causes can be so easily reversed. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you get my point, I am saying that any of the admin tools can cause damage the is not easily reversed, even if the action itself is reversed. _{1 != 2} 04:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocking a user for shoddy reasons is far more damaging than editing a protectrd page and screwing with it. Users are vital to Wikipedia. Blocking them and turning them off to the project should be avoided at all costs. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Getting blocked for an unnecessary reason is indeed annoying, my block log isn't clean just because of that. I didn't leave Wikipedia because of it, but I'm sure many others have and careless blocks are something to be avoided at all costs. Useight (talk) 05:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The block can be undone, but the block summary and the fallout from a bad block are everlasting, indeed. The only admin ability I think should be bundled with rollback isn't a tool, rather the ability to edit through an auto-block. I was caught in an auto-block about a year ago, and while it didn't take long to get it taken care of, it seems like unnecessary process. Lara❤Love 03:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the ability to edit protected pages could be parcelled out to people who need it. The average joe doesn't need rollback---the only people who are going to show a need for rollback (generally) are the vandal fighters. Likewise, the average user won't have a need to edit a protected page---I don't think I've ever edited a protected page unless it was DYK's. That being said, there are several candidates who have come through here over the past year whose need for the tools are the ability to work on protected templates or other things that they've created but have since been protected. These people, whose ability to contribute to wikipedia, are getting all of the tools because they have a demonstrated need for one. This leaves us in a precarious position, what happens when a person who has an excellent history of working on Templates has a lack of policy knowledge? Do we deny him/her the ability to work in the area she/he is best qualified? Preventing that person from effectively work on things they may have originally designed? Or do we lower our standards elsewhere and give them the tools and hope that they don't block people inappropriately with them? As an admin, I wouldn't give the ability to edit protected pages to anybody, it would have to be a person who has a demonstrated need to do so. With that in mind, I do believe it should be unbundled from the package in a manner similar to rollback.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been thinking about Balloonman's idea too. Due to recent heavy and tricky vandalism, a set of templates appearing on several pages had to be protected indefinitely. The problem: The one person most familiar with these templates and having spent hours maintaining them is not a sysop. Editing via talk page >> admin >> template has the disadvantage that this editor won't be able to directly monitor how the changes affect the templated pages. I would support this unbundling, it just shouldn't be another badge people wish to stick on their lapel, but a precision tool reserved for cases such as the one I'm mentioning. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

That's me. I think this is a fantastic idea.. I don't want all the power to block people or whatever but not being able to edit protected pages is frustrating and surreal. I'm not going to vandalize them- I made them! .froth. (talk) 13:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support this idea of being able to run for the ability to edit protected templates. I have suggested minor fixes using the edit-protected process, but that is tedious. I'm in the weird situation that I can't edit this template, which I created. Some of us computer geeks could do useful gnoming work, while not being particularly competent in dealing with the people issues. I frankly don't understand the dynamics of people's interaction on the Wiki at all, but I do understand ParserFunctions quite well. Merzul (talk) 09:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent over whether editprotected should be available separate from the 'sysop' bucket of permissions like block, protect and delete, but please, for the love of god, can we not make it into its own usergroup? We currently have three userrights ('rollbacker', 'ipblockexempt' and 'accountcreator') each of which conveys only one permission. Do we really need to be able to tailor our permissions that closely to the personality of the user? Would we ever have a reason to say "we trust you with rollback, but not with accountcreator"?? I've said it somewhere before: bundle these permissions together into one new usergroup, call it something other than "trusted" (my previous suggestion, carries the wrong connotations of "not trusted" for non-members), and hand it out like rollback (maybe with a one-week waiting period). That would fit fully into our existing hierarchy of user groups: the fact that they're based on trust, not ability or authority, and that we give the tools to those we trust not to abuse them, not those who have a desperate need of them. Happy‑melon 10:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

irc, or other forms of off-wiki communication

Just a general query to satisfy my own curiosity. If a potential nominee has little or no off-wiki communications, how is that weighed against them? The user does not have e-mail enabled in their profile, nor do they chat on the (seemingly bazillions of) irc channels. Yngvarr (c) 00:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that is rarely comes up unless there is drama involved off wiki. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me run something up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes, as David Brent probably said. Does it not seem odd that a few RfAs attract an initial feeding frenzy of supports/opposes, whereas others meander along at a more human pace? Coincidence? Perhaps the weighting against a potential nominee is the lack of opportunity for a little bit of "canvassing"? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that it depends on how well known the candidate is. People tend to have stronger opinions about those they have interacted with. Kevin (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but I was alluding to the speed at which certain nominations attract attention, not the opinions expressed one way or the other. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Malleus. Enigma ^message 03:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

MF may have a point, but, to be less cynical about the whole thing, bear in mind that a lot of RfAs are heavily anticipated, especially with candidates who are well known, hence the droves of users who come to support. The only time I notice a flurry of opposes is an obvious SNOW situation. I don't mean the final count, I mean instantaneous opposes. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you're talking about half a dozen or so early opposes in the case of snow candidates, so once again not quite the same thing. I'm also slightly puzzled by your skewed argument that this only applies to those candidates that other editors want to support. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's my belief that the origin of inflated oppose votes (if this is what you're getting at) is non-comprehensive pile-ons. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I missed your point. Are you asking if we think that there is off-wiki canvassing going on on some RFAs? Kevin (talk) 03:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily intentional canvassing, but I think it's probably true that users who spend a lot of time socialising in IRC get a lot of support simply because people like chatting to them. I don't IRC so I don't know if RFAs ever get linked there, but presumably people mention it to each other. Off wiki contact is pretty much uncontrollable so there's nothing we can do about it, and neither would I want us to. naerii - talk 04:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If that is in fact the case, I doubt it's do to canvassing, but more people just talking about things, and since news tends to travel much faster on IRC (hence the "I" part), edits to the RfA happen faster, and people talk most about people they know or controversial things, so if they see someone that frequents IRC, they'll mention it in the channel. It's not canvassing, it's just simple discussion. For example, CSCWEM2 got several score supports before CSCWEM even accepted, just because people were talking about it, and since everyone knew CSCWEM, it was an easy decision to make, speeding up everything. I certainly wouldn't say this is necessarily a bad thing, like "canvassing" implies, however. --Rory096 01:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I know in a particular recent instance I had been watching and waiting for a particular RfA for some time. If you keep track of people you view as approaching readiness, perhaps even watch listing their RfA, then you have the opportunity to vote pretty quick on it. This particular RfA was not up when I went to bed and was up when I got up the next morning. I partook as soon as I could as I was eager o do so.

Despite some of the finger pointing about canvassing in a recent RfA (from opposers and supporters), the last time I looked at Wikipedia:Canvassing, it was discouraged to the degree of disruption it caused. It is/was not forbidden. Since the things run several days, it shold not be a problem beyond the general reluctance some of us feel to be the first to oppose. I also would not be surprised if some opposers in a recent RfA had not watch listed it because they did not want to miss the opportunity of participating.

The question of the IRC Cabal goes bck at least two years. Maybe longer. I did not partake in RfA more than two yers ago. As I recall, there were outraged cries of cabalism and votestacking then. Dlohcierekim 05:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

All admins should have email enabled in their profile, to allow discussion of blocks and other issues. Many will oppose if this is not the case. WP:TINC, IRC is not, has never been, and will never be a requirement for adminship, but is nonetheless convenient for coordination and socialization. Andre (talk) 07:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think a lot of it has to do with how well-known a candidate is. At this point, I generally only vote in RFAs for users I've interacted with. DHMO, for example, is active on other projects (Commons and Meta) and he's active in two of WP's largest Wikiprojects (GA and FA). I believe he's also a member of the Aussie Cabal, working on articles with that group and participating on that noticeboard, although I could be wrong on that one. Lastly, he participates in a lot of administrative areas and is on IRC, so he's a visible guy who's interacted with hordes of people. A lot of the RFAs that go with only 30-some supports a no to a couple opposes are, in my view, typically the gnomes who haven't interacted with many people, haven't really gotten into conflicts, aren't widely recognized. This RFA has also been widely anticipated, as is evidenced by the many nom offers he's received as of late. Lara❤Love 14:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I'd say one of the primary factors that determines how large a sampling an RfA gets is how "front-and-center" the editor is (other factors, like how often drama follows the candidate, can also play a role). Like Lara said, someone that's in the background garners less eyes than someone making strong pushes to improve numerous articles across different topics (someone working on a suite of related articles is more likely to keep running into the same people). There's nothing wrong with it, but the gnome just doesn't instill that "all fired up" feeling in someone idly perusing the open RfAs. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

But doesn't the speed at which so many of these "idle perusers" come out of the woodwork in some RfAs strike you as even remotely odd? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

In general? No. I know that, for me, there are times where I actually pay attention the RfAs more often than other times, and I realize that many other people may work on similar cycles; every once and a while, those cycles match up. *shrug*
To use a personal example, my first RfB had 30+ supporters right out of the gate before it started to crash and burn, and I know for a fact that I didn't do any canvassing (I was on IRC when I transcluded it, and someone almost instantly made a comment about it). There are RSS feeds for every page; perhaps that's how there's such a huge number so quickly sometimes. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Not really: the resposne rate is not out of line with other heavily-watched pages on the wiki like ANI. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There can be lots of reasons for the speed of reaction, people watch RFA, people may watch the edits of someone that's there (I know for a fact lots of people watch my talk page and my edits), RSS feeds, etc, and yes even canvassing (but hopefully not). — Rlevse • Talk • 16:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

And there's also those who watchlist in anticipation. I've had WP:RFA/DHMO_3 watchlisted for at least two months. Heavily anticipated RFAs are often spoken of in IRC. The candidate and various aspects of their candidacy (answers to questions, opposer concerns, etc) are discussed among a few editors and, of course, others see this and are drawn to the request. I wasn't online during the time this RFA went live, so I don't know about the first few hours, but I know an opposer joined #wikipedia-en-admins at one point to ask why so many people were supporting, wanting to know what they were missing. Lara❤Love 00:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think enabling e-mail should be a requirement for admins; I've received probably over 200 e-mails from people wondering about their blocks (many of whom I unblocked). · AndonicO ^Engage. 16:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there should be any "requirements" of admins at all. They're nothing special, just volunteers like everyone else. If I perform an action on wiki, it can be discussed on wiki. Until I get a paycheck for adminning, I'll continue to not have email enabled. (I have a disclaimer on my userpagethat goes into more detail about my longstanding feelings about IRC and email. I agree Andonic that some things are sensitive however. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

To provide a counter-argument, I've almost never received an admin-related email through Wikipedia (I think just one, but it was such an obvious vandalism-only account that it didn't warrant a response). EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say that, having placed upwards of 700 blocks, I've received somewhere between 10 and 20 block-related emails. Most were not particularly persuasive, though I see how calling someone an arrogant, power-mad fucktard might look like a winning argument to the sender. One bitter fella sent me a series of Harry Potter spoilers (around when the last book came out), though fortunately I'd already finished it. I think it's useful to have that line of communication open, but like Keeper I'm not a big fan of "mandatory" email for admins - if the blocking admin doesn't have email enabled, there are plenty of other means of appealing a block. MastCell ^Talk 16:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

...wait, you seem to be insinuating that calling someone a fucktard isn't the best way of convincing people that you're right. That's crazy talk. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

On the opposite side, I get admin related emails quite often, but if I take an on-wiki action therefrom, I make sure I can back it up with on wiki evidence. The only exception to this would be privacy matters which I am always willing to handle via normal privacy channels, such as OTRS, a CU, arbcom, etc. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's remind ourselves that it's not just administrators who receive abusive emails. Failing someone's pride and joy at a GA review, for instance, can sometimes lead to a flurry of emails questioning everything from your parents' marital status to the IQ of your dog. I do have email enabled, and I always have had, but I don't see any reason why anyone, administrator or not, should be required to be available via email. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I do have e-mail enabled, but I rarely respond via e-mail. I respond on-wiki, or not at all. Only when the situation specifically calls for private communication do I keep to private channels. I don't consider the admin IRC a private venue, there are over 40 admins there usually, and lately the logs are leaked on a regular basis. _{1 != 2} 18:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be virtually impossible to make email mandatory for admins anyways. If it was, IAR could quickly be applied, and then what, we would block the admin for not enabling email? Desysop them? The only thing possible is reccomending admins use it, but given arguments by Keeper and others, it should really just be left as is now. If someone wants to use it, let them, otherwise, don't worry. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Not only that, but having it enabled doesn't ensure antying; as Until(1==2) pointed out, it's quite easy to simply ignore stuff that comes through. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

And for everyone that has a better grasp of English than I do, I'd like to point out that having it enabled doesn't ensure anything, either. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry EVula.... couldn't resist :) Pedro :  Chat  19:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this an example of "typical English humour", Pedro? Darkspots (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Being rather "typically English" I guess so! Sorry, my edit was a bit silly, but after recent events on and off WP a little humour probably doesn't go amiss. Pedro :  Chat  20:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I thought it was funny, just having a little dig at the former colonial overlords. :) Darkspots (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well then, please feel free to add you expression of interest to WIKIPROJECT:PENAL-COLONY... :) Pedro :  Chat  20:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

There's already a Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No, mine is WIKIPROJECT:WE'RE GOOD WITH THE TEA, OH LOOK, HANDY HARBOR OVER HERE. Darkspots (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)That is a lot of big letters for a very small joke. :)

OffWiki communication is, unforutnately, easy to deal with. We can't stop admins/users from conversing about OnWikipedia business. And I don't think we necessarily should. However, with this offwiki conversating policy and guidelines can be subverted such as canvassing for votes/consensus, shopping for a blocking admin, and the like. Think of it like we dealt with the CAMERA fiasco. If we have proof or find out for sure that anyone broke a wikipolicy offwiki they should be confronted regarding it. But other than that there's really nothing we can do other than stress that guidlines and wiki policy shouldn't be mangled offwiki or on wiki. Like all things Wiki, we'll just have to rely on good faith. It's not ideal, but it is what it is. Beam 21:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

New global userright

I have started a centralized discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Administrators#New_global_userright on how our local policy should reflect changes to the global user rights policies at Meta. Please feel free to stop by and comment. MBisanz ^talk 23:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Protection level

I think the protection level for WP:RFA should be indef semi-protection. It would save us from the sock RFA noms and save newbies who don't know better from adding an RFA when they have 5 edits and getting badly bitten on opposes. And it wouldn't interfere with the normal functioning of the page or prevent IPs from editing individual RFAs already transcluded. MBisanz ^talk 04:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is a bad idea at all. I don't see any real drawbacks in doing so. The individual RFAs themselves would still be business as usual, and there is no legitimate reason a new editor would need to edit the main RFA page. This was already proposed maybe two months ago I think. What became of that discussion? --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Faded into oblivion or decided against most likely, I fail to recall which. I seem to remember an administrator actually protecting the page and it being immediately undone by another with some comments here at WT:RFA. Regardless, since this is once again a topic, I have absolutely no problems with the above proposal. RFA would be completely unaffected. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That particular discussion is here Roadrunnerz45 ^{(talk 2 me)} 05:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that in May, there were at least 4 RFAs by users with less than 10 edits at time of transclude. All were SNOW fails, so this would've prevented 4 newbie bitings. MBisanz ^talk 05:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I opposed it then, but have seen the errors of my ways... I think this is a good idea now.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think editing should be sprotected, and moving full protected. I can't see a need for non-autoconfirmed users to edit it, or for anyone to move the page. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with DHMO on this one, I think I too, may have been in error at the time (*GASP!*) SQL^{Query me!} 08:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense. It would also prevent vandalism to the main RfA page such as this or this. Oh, and indef move protection would also be sensible. I see no reason for RfA being moved anytime soon. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 08:42, May 31, 2008 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. The only legitimate reason as to why a very new user is going to edit this page is to add an RfA nom, and if they don't have 10 edits and 4 days experience there is no way they're going to pass. And it doesn't prevent newbies commenting on RfAs. Hut 8.5 13:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

What if they were trying to nominate someone else? Obviously they aren't supposed to be the one transcluding the RFA onto the main page if they aren't the candidate, but a brand new user wouldn't know that. However, that's just as well as that preventative measure would make sure that the actual candidate transcluded the RFA. Now I'm starting to ramble, sorry, I just woke up a few minutes ago, but I also support semi-protecting the page. Useight (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

As I supported this during the last discussion, I would still support it now. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• I support edit semi prot, move full prot. In fact, I may be bold here and do it. Looks like a solid consensus so far. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do be so bold. I can't think of a true problem that this would create, while as Mbisanz has noted, it would certainly prevent some people from being bitten. Antelan^talk 19:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Let the record show I was so bold just now upon popular request. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

A good move as far as I'm concerned. Acalamari 21:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Great work. The previous set up reminded me of putting your hand in the cookie jar only to find a bear trap.Gazimoff ^Write_Read 21:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I generally agree with this action, despite the obvious drawbacks of revoking the ability of anonymous accounts to edit the encyclopedia 'anybody can edit'. Whilst I have seen a few instances of helpful contributions from anonymous and new editors, the conclusions of a simple cost-benefit analysis are flagrantly obvious: preventing new editors from adding RfAs that are clearly going to be NOTNOWed will help guide them away from the pain associated with having a request slammed shut within an hour or two. Regrettable but good move all round. Anthøny 21:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly oppose indefinitely semi-protecting this page from editing, but as I'm clearly in the minority here, I'll spend my time debating other things. ; - ) --MZMcBride (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I oppose this as well, as we recently discussed this same matter too. -- Ned Scott 03:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

As the one who proposed it last time, I can only say "congratulations" to Rlevse for getting semi-protection to actually stick! Full support for indefinite semi-protection. Happy‑melon 10:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There is quite obviously general consensus for semiprotection to be applied. If no degree of substantial opposition arises over the next 24 or so hours, I think we can safely wrap up this discussion. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Again? Per MZMcBride, I'm against this, but recognize I'm probably in the minority, so I won't comment further. I do, however, want to say I'm pretty disappointed that the much less clearcut discussion about this, less than about a month ago, was completely ignored discounted, and "consensus" was declared after a little over 16 hours. This looks like a "facts on the ground" game (or a game of wheel-war chicken); surely everyone here knows this has gone back and forth alot in the past? I'll live with semi-protection, based on a "pick your battles" philosophy, but this was done in poor form, IMHO, and leaves a sour taste. --barneca (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. We don't protect pages just because they shouldn't be edited. It's the simple things, you know? ➪HiDrNick! 14:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You guys do realise that this makes the edit section links disappear and therefore means that most, if not all IPs won't know how to comment on/at an RfA? Way to go. 86.147.110.112 (talk) 00:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You just click the link in the section name.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 01:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Uhhh, IPs aren't supposed to vote at RFAs anyway... -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

While I'd love to know whose registered account that IP belongs to, sadly a CU probably won't go to the ol' fishing hole for me. IPs can comment at RFA, but I really can't remember the last time a non-sock IP made a legitimate comment. MBisanz ^talk 06:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think WP:RFA should be at least semi-protected. I personally think that only established users could vote one way or the other on an RFA. People who have been here for awhile and have an idea about how things are. -- Qaddosh|^talk|contribs 06:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Except that protecting RfA wouldn't preclude voting from unconfirmed users and IPs. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not getting how this once again devolved into IPs commenting on individual RfAs. I don't see how protecting the main RfA page affects that at all. I fully support semi-protecting WP:RFA. Enigma ^message 07:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection doesn't entirely preclude logged-out users from commenting on RfAs, but it does make it more difficult. Now that the page has been semi-protected, there are no links next to the section names on WP:RFA unless you are logged in. This was a bad idea indeed. ➪HiDrNick! 13:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Apollo1986 needs closing

it's from January 2008, I think it's finished its run. Beyonf a WP:NOTNOW at this point but I gather it wasn't ever transcluded. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 01:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I deleted it. Andre (talk) 01:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Good decision: if the RfA was never transcluded, then there's no point in it being closed as unsuccessful if it wasn't an RfA that ever ran in the first place. Acalamari 01:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't exactly sure what needed to be done in this case. Since s/he seems to have returned lately, I'd hate to have it bite them if s/he decides to do a future RfA. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)