Meta talk:Administrators/Archives/2011

Personal attck on individual

With due respect I would like you to interfere the personal attack on me Subhashish Panigrahi. Two of the other Wikipedians of Odia Wikipedia, ସମ୍ବିଧାନ ମହାନ୍ତି and Jyoti Prasad Pattnaik are consistently opposing each of my contributions instead of taking part in any constructive contribution. As the Odia Wikipedia is in its infancy such individual attack and opposition is deeply regretted and hurts. Please consider this and take necessary action. ସୁଭ ପା (Subhashish Panigrahi) 09:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This talk page is unlikely to be able to help, as it is about the role of administrators on Meta itself, and little else. If you can't work to a resolution within the local community, a Requests for comment here on Meta is a possibility, but a talk page for the position of local sysop on this project is not what you are seeking. (For the record, help from local sysops may be requested at Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat) Courcelles 09:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Rules re: global sysops

Are global sysops who are not admins on a content wiki but are active on meta able to run for admin here? Just curious (rereading policies) I'd say that global sysops should qualify. fr33kman 16:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

For me, a gs should be a sysop on a content project. I prefer admins with local admin experience somewhere. -Barras 16:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

None can stand for sysop access at meta if it is not an admin in a content project. It's been community decided. Notwithstanding an elected global sysop might margin. qualify for being a candidate. Regards. -- Dferg ^{☎ talk} 18:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia content projects...

The following discussion is closed: Discussion continues at Meta_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Removing_admin-on-other-project_requirement_for_Meta_admins.

---

As the recent RfA of Ajraddatz shows, we need to clarify what counts as a content project and what should the experience of Meta sysop candidates look like. I would say we should first exactly state what we take as a content project and I would rather fix this on the number of active sysops (I guess at least two active(!) sysops including the candidate should be sufficient - that excludes a lot of the small projects, yes I know!), as we only want to make sure that the candidate knows what to do with the tools, right?) rather than on the type of wiki, but of course we need to explicitely exclude things like test.wiki or strategy or wikimania wikis etc.pp. Then we should add that the candidate must have been active(!) as sysop on such project for at least 3 months (to show enough experience). --თოგო ^(D) 12:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I would personally love to just get rid of the content wiki adminship requirement. This is meta, people at RfA here are requesting adminship on meta - surely we should be judging them based on their contributions to meta, rather than other projects? Meta has enough admin areas that it is pretty easy to judge how a user would do with the tools here without needing to see if another community trusts them.

Beyond that, turning the focus of adminship here from other wikis to this wiki would make it less of a trophy for people who are admins on content wikis and more of a toolkit for people who actually need it. Looking at the massive list of admins here, how many people actually use their tools? How many people ever even had a legitimate need for the tools? Adminship shouldn't be a big deal, but there should be some need for it before it is granted, not just a trophy for being an admin on some.wikipedia.org. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Candidates should be judged on a case-by-case basis; not an arbitrary set of rules. I trust the community will evaluate the candidate's merits based on the evidence presented to them. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hm, well... But as a Meta sysop you can really break things (Spam blacklist, global notices and stuff), so a little experience with the tools comes in handy, I'd say. Let's just amend it to "Candidates need to have sufficient experience with the sysop tools." Would that be ok? --თოგო ^(D) 10:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, Meta sysops can break things; but Meta isn't really a project where people request adminship for no reason. Even larger projects like enwiki have guidelines for requesting adminship, but anyone can request adminship, and allow the community to judge based on their track record. I see no real need to introduce hard-and-fast rules preventing people from even running. The regulars who contribute to RfA discussions know the sort of things to look for/against in a candidate. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The entire point of an RfA is to determine whether or not the candidate is ready for admin tools. That's why having any requirements is a bad thing - it defeats the purpose of the case-by-case nature of the RfA. Since the entire process was invented for the reason of allowing the community to decide whether or not the person would use admin tools well, I think that we should remove the requirements and just leave it at that - there's nothing that can determine eligibility like a good community discussion. I personally don't see much need to reduce it to "Candidates need to have sufficient experience with the sysop tools.", since that is basically common sense and would be reflected in the community's votes anyways. But, if there isn't consensus to remove the requirements, I'd support changing it to that. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The entire point of an RfA is to determine whether or not the candidate is ready for admin tools. That's why having any requirements is a bad thing - it defeats the purpose of the case-by-case nature of the RfA. Since the entire process was invented for the reason of allowing the community to decide whether or not the person would use admin tools well, I think that we should remove the requirements and just leave it at that - there's nothing that can determine eligibility like a good community discussion. I personally don't see much need to reduce it to "Candidates need to have sufficient experience with the sysop tools.", since that is basically common sense and would be reflected in the community's votes anyways. But, if there isn't consensus to remove the requirements, I'd support changing it to that. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:12, 28 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)

We should probably discuss this at Meta:Babel#Removing admin-on-other-project requirement for Meta admins. —Pathoschild 00:26:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I've copy-pasted the above discussion to that page - it would usually be better to discuss that here, but since the original discussion was at that page it might as well be there. Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I undid your paste. Please don't insert one discussion into the middle of another; it really disrupts the other conversation. If you want to respond to an argument that was raised on this page, how about saying something like: "On Meta talk:Administrators, PeterSymonds argued that X and თოგო pointed out Y. I disagree because Z."? This disrupts the other conversation much less without losing your arguments. —Pathoschild 01:59:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I really don't see how that was disruptive - these two discussions are on the same topic, and indented in such a way to separate ideas - but that's your call I guess. So long as this discussion remains linked to from the other one. Ajraddatz (Talk) 02:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)