Wikiquote talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 2

This is a discussion archive created in or until 2007, though the comments contained may not have been posted on this date. Please do not post any new comments on this page. See [[../../|current discussion]] or the archives index.

Candidate qualification

Regarding a current incident, I would propose we set some qualification for sysop candidates. Those qualification should be applied us current sysops too.

That is

• Sysops should registered and valid wikiquote email address in preferences, or an email address indicated on their user page

In my opinion sysops are accountable for their deeds using their right, and communication channel should be therefore open.

Currently I don't have a reason to add other requirements to it, but you may expand ... --Aphaia 03:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the email requirement. I'd swear that I had read that this already was a requirement somewhere in Wikipedia or Meta. I couldn't find it during a quick survey of relevant WP pages, but I believe it had something to do with evolving privacy concerns, to allow sysops to handle some of these issues away from wiki pages that are open to predators and identity thieves. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It is either mentioned on a page or heavily suggested. A candidate would normally get yelled at if they had no e-mail enabled. Cbrown1023 talk 15:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I copied it from Meta:Administrators :) -Aphaia 16:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I also support the addition of that requirement. Cbrown1023 talk 17:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

We might also want to add some general expectations, like a terse version of selected bullets from w:Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship#What RfA contributors look for. In fact, we might want to supplement this policy/request page with a Wikiquote:Guide to requests for adminship modelled on the Wikipedia one. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I would support this. Cbrown1023 talk 15:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. --Aphaia 16:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure I've come across admins on Wikipedia without e-mail enabled but it's a very bad idea.--Poetlister 19:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I support requiring admins and adminship candidates having valid emails.--Jusjih 22:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

How to apply

If we are going to that direction, we need to ensure all existing sysops are able to receive mails. I checked some inactive admins, and they haven't confirmed their mail addresses (the authentification was lately introduced ... in the late of last year). Since they cannot be reached by email, it is nice of us to give them time to enforce it (in some months?) and to make efforts to reach them in other ways, like on other wikis etc. It may imply we remove inactive admins, while I am not sure if it is also on community's consensus. --Aphaia 16:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I would stray away from that. I do not think removing inactive admins is a good idea (at least for this project). Everything else that you proposed, though, is a good idea, and I support. Cbrown1023 talk 17:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm also reluctant to remove inactive sysops without first communicating with them, but it is not unreasonable for a project to choose to do so. Some of our absent folks are at least semi-active elsewhere, so we might reach them via those other projects. For the rest, we could either:

• Have a grandfather clause for inactive sysops, so they need not register an email unless they become active again. (In this case, we should probably might mention, in any policies that suggest emailing a sysop, that users should just try another if the email doesn't work. I can easily imagine the frustration of a wikian who is told they should email a sysop only to find the one they chose is unreachable, "proving" that Wikiquote is just like any modern "customer service" organization — call us and we'll ignore you.)
• After Aphaia's delay (I'd suggest at least 1 month but no more than 3), de-sysop any unreachable folks, with the provision that they may be speedily re-sysopped if they eventually return to request it and register an email.

~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that the list of sysops is already split into active and inactive ones. Presumably, anyone wishing to call a sysop would go for the active ones.--Cato 22:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

WP does not de-sysop inactive admins, and I can't see anything useful would be achieved by doing so. Users have been known to return after 2 years even, so a maximum of 3 months leeway seems rather tight. I'm also against formally enforced email enablement. There's no reason why an admin should not be able to restrict their activities to the wiki site and still be viable. Email opens people to various potential problems, including spamming and abuse. I am not against it being a consideration during RfA, but it should not be a sole determining factor. Admins who wish to retain anonymity might consider a googlemail address, which does not reveal the IP in the header, unlike yahoo for example. Gmail might require an invite, but I can issue one to anybody on request (I have email enabled). Tyrenius 04:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

WP may not, but meta does. We have to understand the difference between the projects. Meta does it because there are many and it is a secondary project, you only keep it whilst you need it. Quote is different, it is a primary project, people may come back after a long 'break and it is smaller, we need all the sysops we can get. :-P Commons reconfirms because it is a large thing to be a commons sysop, they control a lot of different projects. If you delete an image there, it disappears from a large number of sites. Meta also controls the sites like <http://www.wikiquote.org/>, the write the code and update them. It could cause a lot of damage if someone messed up. Cbrown1023 talk 15:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It is slightly hard to spam someone with e-mail from WQ via the e-mail user function. I am sure that there are certain restrictions on the amount of times a user can e-mail another. If one cannot handle abuse from a blocked vandal (the vandal's last and only resort is to yell at you), then one may not be a blocking-sysop material. It definitely won't be the sole-determing factor, but those without it may get scolded. I don't belive anyone expect the e-mail to be the user's primary one, it could even be something like tyrenius.wikiquote@gmail.com. Cbrown1023 talk 15:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tyrenius; we are not like some projects (Commons for instance) who confirm their admins each year. The number of continually active Wikiquotians is small and most of those who continue to be active are the sysops. Wikipedia does normally expect sysops to have email enabled for matters such as blocked users contesting their blocks and I don't see the problem with strongly encouraging sysops to enable their email. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 09:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

One major benefit of removal of inactive admins is to avoid stealing sysop password. English Wikisource removes flags from inactive admins mainly in this reason. The benefit of annual review has its benefit, but I admit currently we might have not to implement these systems.

As for mail reachability, we seem to reach the agreement "sysops and candidates should be reached by wikimail" with some reservation for oldbies? The sysop flag was basically given on the community consensus (except mav, see below), so theoretically community consensus can determine how to handle them, and our common sense seems to say "have them keep their flag for now" - and already pointed out, it is unlike to happen someone tries to contact first them, not active sysops. We can try to contact him outside of the project a/o leave a note on their talks about the new requirement and recommendation to the time they are back.

As for mav (Daniel Mayer). I think we cause no problem if we remove sysop flag from mav, since it was apparently for his emergent need. Once I asked his opinion about that, but he didn't give a special interest. I have no problem to let him hold the flag too. --Aphaia 07:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Password theft is extremely unlikely (even less so than WP with a number of long inactive admins) and bad actions would soon be spotted and reversed. Tyrenius 01:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

But Daniel Mayer is the only user here who can remove the sysop flag - you have to be a steward.--Cato 22:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, yes, we know, but there are never local stewards and I think we all know about desysopings needing to be carried out by stewards. :) Cbrown1023 talk 00:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It is obvious we need ask a steward for help. As for desysopping a steward, I see no problem, since 1) it seems actually for emergency need and 2) we see some stewards removed their flags due to inactivity (e.g. English Wikisource), so it is primarily up to us.

Another way is to count those people outside of the local sysop team either active or inactive, like English Wikinews. On thier list, we don't see the people who retain their sysop access not through the community vote. I think it make some sense since those people are not sysops in the ordinary meaning, hence not a part of sysop team who serve the daily needs of the project with their mops. --Aphaia 13:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal revised

Regarding the discussion on the above, I hereby proposed again the rule as following:

• Definition

Active sysop

Users who have sysop privileges and edited within three monthsone month

• provised through the discussion below.

Inactive sysop

Users who have sysop privileges and made no edit within three monthsone month

• provised through the discussion below.
• Currently they are described "have sysop privileges here, but are now seldom involved as editors" as well the people on the below

Guest sysop

Users who have sysop privileges due to technical/operational reasons, not through the English Wikiquote community process.

Here we are concerns the first two administrators who have been voted by the community, and leave the guest (I mean Brion and mav) alone for a while.

As for mail reachability requirement,

• Active sysops must make their wikimail active. Sysop candidates too. Instead of activation, they may put their email address on their userpages.

  -> In principal, sysops should registered and valid wikiquote email address in preferences, or an email address indicated on their user page. For active sysops, as well sysop candidates, it is mandatory.

• Inactive sysops including guest sysops are recommended to make their wikimail on the talk. If they are back and become active again, they are expected to activate their mail preferences.
• In this moment, we are not going far to distinguish guests from inactive sysops as a whole; it may be a topic someday (in a month later, as JeffQ suggested?), but not for now.

Your comment will be appreciated. --Aphaia 04:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support completely. Cbrown1023 talk 19:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support, except I feel the "inactive" period should be at least three months. Wikibreaks (or at least Wikiquote-breaks) of more than a month are not unusual even among sysops here. I don't think we should consider them "inactive" until they've been gone for a while (in Wikiquote terms). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I would not be opposed to this. Cbrown1023 talk 22:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Unopposed : I've never really been too concerned about this, but I do feel a three month period is more appropriate than a one month period. I myself have contemplated the possible need for my being absent for a month or more, and out of contact with the internet, but have not thus far needed to be out of contact for more than a few days at a time. ~ Kalki 23:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Clarification Requested We are just talking about the definition of guest, active, and inactive, correct? Not what happens to a sysop when (s)he reaches that threshold (i.e. sysop status removed...)? Cbrown1023 talk 23:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

That is my understanding. I would be opposed to de-sysoping anyone merely for any period of absence. ~ Kalki 00:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Ditto re not de-sysopping.

I didn't see anything in Aphaia's proposal about de-sysopping, which strikes me as a separate issue. Given the contention elsewhere on this issue, my support above is purely for the active/inactive distinction and the expecations of email contact that go with it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I know, I was just making sure because it was discussed above. Cbrown1023 talk 04:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for making it clear, as Jeffq and Kalki pointed out, my proposal is mainly concerned with active/inactive sysop distinction and requirement for those two. I left the problem when we see someone inactive in my first proposal, and proposed term is therefore a tentative idea. Now I think lack of three months activity a sensible measure. --Aphaia 04:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support listing after 3 months.
  • Alternative - bands, i.e. admins edited within 1 month | 3 months | 1 year | more than 1 year |
  • Alternative - bot created refreshable list of last edit time.
  • Alternative - admins sign in to a special page when they start editing and erase their last sign in. Tyrenius 00:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    • These alternatives all sound like technical solutions in search of a non-apparent problem. With all things about Wikiquote, we should never add complexity unless it directly and simply solves a clear problem (and is easy for everyone to maintain). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support with the three-month proviso. - InvisibleSun 11:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support, using the three-month period. ~ UDScott 13:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support All seems eminently sensible. People do take short breaks; this is my first edit for a few days.--Poetlister 19:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support seems reasonable, we may adjust the time periods in the future but let's go with it. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 10:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support The proposed email reachability requirement and inactive definition (3 months) seem good to me. iddo999 12:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support listing after 3 months, but please specify what you plan with regard to inactive admins.--Jusjih 22:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your additional support, currently we seem to decide to do nothing for active fellows. I left a message about mail confirmation on their talks. That may be all we agreed on that we would do for them. --Aphaia 22:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text revised, please review

With the power of your support, I revised the document(diff). Changes are found at the top (rule part) and at the bottom (sysop list parts). I colored the rule parts so that new inserts are colored and easily distinct from the former part. Please check the current revision if it is okay for you . --Aphaia 05:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I have made some changes in wording, but other than that, it looks good. Cbrown1023 talk 18:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Poetlister proofread it too, thanks you two. Now I removed color and merge it into the existing parts completely. --Aphaia 17:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

List of admins

Would it be neater, rather than having separate lists of bureaucrats and checkusers, just to put (bureaucrat) or (checkuser) after their names? It's not as if we're ever going to have so many bureaucrats and checkusers that it's worth having separate lists?--Poetlister 11:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of a more concise (and compact) list, now that we're getting a decent number of admins. n:Wikinews:Administrators has a structure worth looking at, although I'm not sure format-coding is the best thing to help our new users (the folks I'd normally expect to want to look up this information). Perhaps we can use a 2- or 3-column form with Poetlister's parenthetical notes? (I can implement something that's still easy to edit, if we decide we'd like a change. See my current User:Jeffq#Articles I created or unstubbed for a another, slightly fancy columnar form whose list data is ordinary wiki markup.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Ya but can you do it as a Venn diagram ?? :) ++Lar: t/c 23:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Guys, I believe Poetlister means to do something along the lines of what Commons does. Cbrown1023 talk 19:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That's completely confusing! I think the present arrangement is very clear and easy to use. Tyrenius 00:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a related question: why do we have a list of admins here anyway? Shouldn't we just have the one at WQ:ADMIN, which is already noted at the very top of this page? With two lists (not even counting other user and system-generated lists), we have to maintain them both, which is usually a bad idea. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I forgot the page had also that list, even under a different construction ...... and it looks logical to keep the list on WQ:ADMIN and only. It gives a general information about admins and the list (who's who) is such info definitely. --Aphaia 20:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the form of list, everyone seems to support to have one sole list, I removed the lists from WQ:RFA and put {{list of admins}} instead. The former lists could be merged into the template, if you prefer. I have no strong preference about its format currently. --Aphaia 10:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. Would it be worth making the inactive ones less conspicuous (smaller font, say)?--Cato 11:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Cato. I think there is a distinction between active admins who users may find it useful to contact and those who are inactive or indeed guests/stewards or the like. I've no time now but if no one else does I may try altering this to see what people think --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I've done what I had in mind, but of course if people don't like it, please revert!--Cato 14:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok - I've tried an alternative? In a sense I would separate out the inactive/guests but not sure what others think. Feel free to revert mine back to Cato, I do not feel strongly --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship

Isn't this title the same as "Nominations for adminship", which could have a note that you can nominate yourself in this section? At the moment it's not clear what the Reqests title is for. Tyrenius 00:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a question too. Why do we separate "nomination" and "self-nomination"? --Aphaia 01:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It's Nanobug's fault ☺, when he created the original WQ:RFA page. No doubt he based it on the then-current w:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. But I suggest that we don't need to hold to this tradition, any more than Wikipedia has, especially if we feel it unnecessarily causes confusion or inhibits editors from volunteering to take on more responsibility. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I've changed it per this discussion. Tyrenius 05:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Support. --Aphaia 06:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)