Wiktionary:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 2

From Wiktionary
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not change what is on this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or add comments to an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This is an archive of completed Administrators' noticeboard problems. Please add newer completed requests at the top.

Requirements for RfAs[change]

Yes check.svg Resolved. The proposal is now a policy

Hi there all. Brett put in his closure of Maximillion Pegasus's RfA that we should think about making the base requirements for becoming an administrator here, and I believe that we should discuss some requirements for becoming an administrator here. Does everyone agree with this, or is there some dissent about having requirements for RfAs here? Razorflame 18:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Go ahead.--Brett 19:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for RfA requirements[change]

The following was taken from the English Wiktionary's talk page of their Wiktionary:Administrator page, and I believe that they would be great requirements here:

  • You've been actively participating at Wiktionary for a while (at least a month in most cases), making constructive edits
  • You understand at least the basic policies and conventions
  • You understand at least the basic formatting structure of Wiktionary entries and get it right at least most of the time (I don't expect perfection, so don't worry about that!)
  • You show that you learn from your mistakes.
  • You show a willingness to learn what you don't know and ask for help, advice and other opinions where needed
  • You get on well with all or almost the people you interact with, particularly established users (personality conflicts can happen, but do try not to antagonise them if they do)
  • You understand that other users may not know as much as you, or conversely, may know more than you do; and interact with them accordingly.

This was taken from a comment made by the user, Thryduulf, and I completely agree with him. Good requirements? Questions, comments? Agree or disagree? Cheers, Razorflame 19:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it is great that we are actually setting out some rules for adminship, and I think now's a good time. Previously, it was sort of informal, but it is good to get something more specific figured out and written down. I think we should probably also include a minimum number of edits, so that someone who only edited once four months ago can't say, "Aha! I fit the requirements now!" Maybe 500 or 1000 edits or so. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 00:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I do not think that it is wise to impose a limit on the number of edits one needs to become an administrator. I think that so long as the user is making good contributions and understands the rules, policies, and regulations of the Simple English Wiktionary, even when he only has like 300-400 edits, I think that he should not be excluded from becoming an administrator....some of the best administrators on the Simple English Wikipedia have been ones that had fewer than 1,000 edits in the mainspace. Cheers, Razorflame 14:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
:P The users who become syops at Simple nowadays have only 1000 edits in all; so 400 is too great a number. I'd personally say 250 and 3 weeks before an RfA. Cheers, Pmlineditor 11:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC).
I think 250 is too few to judge a persons' editing style or activity on this Simple English Wiktionary. I think that 400 is borderline too few myself, as I would rather see something like 500+ edits and at least a month of good activity before they request the tools here. However, this is just my feelings on this matter. Razorflame 23:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I think you're correct. Pmlineditor  Talk 16:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
So let's make it a minimum of 400 edits with a minimum of a months' worth of activity before they can request the tools here on the Simple English Wiktionary. Please note that accelerated edits will not count towards this as they show that you know how to use the acceleration tool, not that you know how to properly format a definition here. Razorflame 17:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd say that accelerated tools are counted as half of a normal page creation. I often use such a tool, but may add a pronounciation or an example to it. Pmlineditor  Talk 07:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we're looking for three things: evidence of commitment, of competence, and of trustworthiness. Edit counts don't seem to be a good indication of any of these. (I was recently made an admin at en.wikt despite having fewer than 200 edits there.) To address the issue of competence, maybe we should just look for a variety of "substantial edits" that clearly show the editor understands the format. Perhaps, the nominated editor should put together a portfolio showing what they can do. Trust can often be judged by performance on other projects (we don't seem to get any complete wiki neophytes). The question of commitment is more difficult as we do seem to have a history of people being granted admin status only to quickly disappear.--Brett 12:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

  • My thought: To be an admin is only a voluntary work of trusted users. All user who are trusted should get the bit. They should show, that they are willing to help on this project. This can be shown by about 200 edits imo in the last two to four weeks. In generell I'm against a set number of edits. The editcount isn't all. User who have shown, that they can be trusted (admins from other projects e.g.) should get the tool. On the other side, we shouldn't have too many users who have the bit and never use it/or be active here. Just for having it, isn't good imo. We should have a very easy way to get the tools and the tools should be removed by six months of inactivity. Barras || talk 13:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
    @Barras: No, people who are administrators on other projects should not just automatically get the bit here. They have to show that they know the editing and formatting conventions here before I would even think about supporting them for adminship. Yes, I agree that if they are an administrator on another project that that would help their cause in becoming an administrator here, but they need to show that they are going to actively participate and use the tools to their fullest potential and use them correctly.
  • @Brett: I think that people could just look through their change log to see if they are doing the right thing for this project. I agree that they should show a number of substantial edits that show that they know how to correctly create and format a definition page here and that they know the editing and formatting conventions that we use here. Cheers, Razorflame 15:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I didn't wanted to say, that admins from other projects should automatically get the tool. Barras || talk 16:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we should be determining who can run on RfA by setting an arbitrary minimum of edits. As Brett says above, having lots of edits doesn't always mean the user is experienced, as many of them could be made using automated tools. I feel we should judge RfAs on a case-by-case basis: I'd support an editor for admin here even if s/he had only 200 edits, but all of them are good and clearly indicate knowledge and competence. On the other hand, I might not support an editor that has 600+ edits, but shows poor knowledge of formatting and/or has lots of automated edits. IMO quantity does not always equal quality. Tempodivalse 19:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I completely agree with you Tempodivalse. We shouldn't say that a user has to have a specific amount of edits, but we should say that they need to have like more than 100 edits or some other minimum to prevent people from thinking that they are able to run when they aren't. If you would take a look at the requirements that I proposed up above, I believe them to be a great set of criteria for adminship. What do you guys think? Razorflame 00:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

<--I think those are good requirements mostly, we probably want to make sure we have some of the basic requirements spelled out sort of like En and [simple] do. Mostly just thinks like:

  • Only named accounts can become administrators, anonymous users are unable to become administrators
  • Any user who wishes to become and administrator needs to have an email set up in the users preferences; this is because administrators are sometimes contacted by email.

Jamesofur 04:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Requirements thus far[change]

So, after much discussion on this, and after much thought, I believe that consensus is forming as to the requirements that we are making in order to become an administrator here on the Simple Wiktionary. They are as follows:

  • You've been actively participating at Wiktionary for a while (at least a month in most cases), making constructive edits
  • You understand at least the basic policies and conventions that an administrator needs
  • You understand a good part of the formatting structure of Wiktionary entries and get it right at least most of the time (I don't expect perfection, so don't worry about that!)
  • You show that you learn from your mistakes.
  • You show a willingness to learn what you don't know and ask for help, advice and other opinions where needed
  • You get on well with all or almost the people you interact with, particularly established users (personality conflicts can happen, but do try not to antagonise them if they do)
  • You understand that other users may not know as much as you, or conversely, may know more than you do; and interact with them accordingly.
  • Only named accounts can become administrators, anonymous users are unable to become administrators.
  • Any user who wishes to become and administrator needs to have an email set up in the userspreferences; this is because administrators are sometimes contacted by email.

Is everyone in agreement with these requirements? If not, please pipe up now. :) Razorflame 05:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Agree with above Jamesofur 10:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Just the one thing, I'd like the user to have experience in the deletion policy and to have requested few QDs. Otherwise, looks good. Pmlineditor  Talk 11:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
    • That is included in the second point made. Cheers, Razorflame 14:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok then, I am making this official. There have been no qualms against the implementation of these requirements, so I am going to go ahead and draft our Criteria for adminship now. Razorflame 20:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Massive amount of IP vandalism[change]

Yes check.svg Resolved.

Don't have rollback here at the moment so not really keeping up with it (hopefully he gets tired) but massive amounts of vandalism from 71.107.252.102 if an Admin could have a look and block him it would be great :)Jamesofur 06:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Happily I was able to grab a steward who could block and then a couple more editors to help revert the vandalism :) looks like 120 different acts over about 45 minutes :( Jamesofur 07:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. Barras || talk 12:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Changing of administrative things[change]

I propose to grant the crat tool (it contains making sysops, making crats, making bots and removing bot flag) to all active sysops. This is a small wiki and it wouldn't harm if all sysop has the flag. This system works well on the spain wiki, where all admins get also the crat flag.

Furthermore, I think it would be helpful for security reasons to decrat and desysop all users who didn't edit for one year. If they return to simplewikt, they can simple get their flags back. It would be helpful. Any thoughts? Barras 20:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

We should not give every single administrator the bureaucrat flag because being a bureaucrat requires more trust from the community than just being an administrator. Furthermore, bureaucrats needs to be able to judge if consensus has formed on certain issues, as well as being able to judge whether or not name changes and people applying for bot flags deserve said flags. Also, bureaucrats can do things that require stewards to undo, which makes it all the more so that we should not automatically give the 'crat flag out to every single administrator. Furthermore, not everyone is skillful enough with the administrative tools to garner said trust from the community. I would say that it should stay the way it is because people need to apply for the flag, rather than just have it be automatically granted.
On the issue of desysopping people who are obviously no longer active on this project, I say yes, we should remove flags from some of the longest inactive administrators. Gmcfoley and fcelloguy are the two that I am in favor of removing the administrator flags from without a desysop vote and most of the others should be voted on to see if there is consensus for the removal of administrator/bureaucrat flags on the basis of inactivity. Those are my thoughts on this. Razorflame 22:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm totally in favor of removing old flags, I just think it doesn't make sense to keep inactive people flagged. Is there an enormous security risk? no, but there is more of a security risk in my opinion then there is a risk that they will come back after a year or 3 and be so upset with the project for removing it that they leave (which seems to be the way some people think it will happen). My personal thought is a year of inactivity but it may depend on what others think for what we get consensus for. Do we want to put up a discussion for that on Simple talk perhaps? If we want to vote on the others maybe a separate project page so that we can have all of them up there but without cluttering this page or talk?.

On the topic of crat flags I'm somewhat mixed.. I completely think there should always be at least 2 in case one drops to inactivity for any reason. There is some truth to the fact that they could do some crazy things if they really wanted (start flagging random admins etc) including things that they can't undo if done by accident. Maybe a more generic proposal? Something like if an active admin for longer then X requests to be made a crat they can request it and it will be granted in y days unless some sort of (defined) opposition is raised? Jamesofur 23:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

<----To tell you guys the truth, I think that this proposal should wait until we solidify our CFA, or Criteria for Adminship. We need to set requirements for RfAs and RfXs in the future so that we follow a specific set of criteria for picking our next administrators. All this talk about flagging all administrators as bureaucrats is utter nonsense at this point in time because we have bigger needs at this point in time. Let us stop worrying about who becomes administrators and bureaucrats and start getting new active users and more entries :). Razorflame 00:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Well, I'm 200% in support of desysop of inactive admins. But on the other hand, I'm not that sure about making all active admins crats. Cratship requires a higher level of trust different than that of admin. IMHO, to make such a move will need all active admins to go through confirmation RfAs keeping in mind the crat bit. Since this will probably be difficult to get, I think that I'd rather not do this. Pmlineditor  Talk 11:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Secondly, yes, we should decide on a CFA and use it. And of course, creating new entries is always our motto. Pmlineditor  Talk 11:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure about giving all sysops the 'crat bit. Since bureaucrat actions can't be undone easily and are more powerful, imho they require an even higher amount of trust than needed for sysops.
I, however, disagree with the desysoping of inactive sysops. (looks like I'm going to be the lone dissenter here) I've heard from the developers somewhere that inactive accounts actually pose less of a security risk than active ones. In any case, any account can be hacked at - active or not. Besides, what harm are they doing to the project? If inactive users ever return (which is not improbable), they'll feel more welcome if they still have the admin bits. I only support removal of admin bits if there has been some proof that the user has become untrustworthy with the tools. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, IMO, they can have it when they come back without RfAs. Yeah, I have heard of the fact that inactive ones pose less security risk, but IMO, if someone gets admin, doesn't edit ever since then and doesn't use the bit, it'll be better not to let them retain it. Of course, they can have it back when they return. Pmlineditor  Talk 15:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
But, removing and re-granting rights seems like a rather pointless use of our time. If we're going to give them the bits back if they return without an RFA, why not just let them keep the bits to begin with and save ourselves the trouble? My point is: if it isn't broken, there's no need to fix it. While inactive admins aren't exactly useful, they don't harm the wiki either. Tempodivalse [talk] 16:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I see your point. Well, I think that you are correct in saying that there is no point in removing and regranting admin status. So yeah, ok, lets concentrate on creating entries. Pmlineditor  Talk 16:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

<-- I'm still going to disagree with with this but If people don't want it thats fine, I just think there is no reason to have people marked as admins/crats when they aren't around anymore. I should point out that most projects do have inactivity limits, En is an exception if you look at commons/meta for example. I also don't get the welcoming thing at all.. It sounds harsh but to be honest if your upset because you don't have your admin flag after leaving 2 years ago I'm not sure I want you to be an admin. Just my 2cents :) Jamesofur 22:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC) Removal of flags from inactive users, yes. Automatic addition of crat right, no. Griffinofwales 22:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

  • OK. I understand. Here is no consensus to grant all sysops the crat flag. For the desysop: See below. Barras (talk) 09:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)