Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 00:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Current time: 06:15:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Lessening the need for administrators by giving most content-related tools to "trusted and experienced editors."

Perhaps we need a trusted and experienced editor that has all admin-level editing privileges except those that relate to deleted content:

These advanced editing abilities would include:

• Autopatrolled, rollback, and reviewer rights
• Edit and move fully- or move-protected pages
• Increase page protection levels for a limited time pending administrator review.
• View Special:Unwatchedpages to aide in vandalism-detection
• Any other tool I left out that is strictly an aid to editing and which does not allow access to confidential or suppressed information such as deleted content.
• A new "pseudo-delete" tool or script which would be a one-button "blank the page and replace it with a "deletion pending" text, fully-protect it, and log it to a "locked and marked for deletion"-patrol page, with a bot to undo the action for any page not deleted within a few hours. This would be the "trusted editor" version of a speedy-deletion nomination or second, the major difference being that the page would be fully-protected until an administrator reviews and deletes or restores it.

This would NOT automatically have privileges to delete or restore pages or see deleted content. It would NOT automatically grant non-editing privileges such as creating accounts, changing user rights, blocking and un-blocking users, changing the user interface, excluding bulk vandalism from recent changes, being exempt from an IP block, changing the text filter, or other rights not directly related to editing.

Benefits

• Less work for admins.

• The level of trust needed for these tools is much lower than that of some of the remaining tools. Basically any editor who had a few months' tenure and a few hundred edits and who says "I read the rules and the how-to for the tools, and am requesting access" would be granted access.

• A stepping-stone to full admin-ship that will all but eliminate "NOTNOW" nominations.

Risks

• We will have to deal with NOTNOW requests for this privilege level. We already have this issue with editors who prematurely ask for reviewer, rollback, and autopatrolled rights.
• Some editors will abuse the tools or simply make bad decisions. They are easily revoked. If this is seen as a major reason not to have these tools in the hands of non-Admins, a software change to limit the frequency of "uses" of each of these rights to a certain number per day or a certain number per 100 edits until the user has used them for a period of time will cut down on honest mistakes. It will make it harder for those determined to abuse the tools to get to the point that they can do large amounts of damage.

Additional notes

I am very aware that the idea of an "admin lite" is a perennial proposal. However, given recent trends relating to RFA, it's a proposal whose time has come.

Comments? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Page protection, edits to protected articles, and speedy deletion are not areas that have had significant backlogs lately. And I also don't see how it would stop NOTNOW nominations, which are usually users who are grossly unqualified, as opposed to "trusted and experienced editors." That and the other objections that are raised every time partial adminship is proposed. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Having more people who can work on these not-currently-backlogged areas will free up the admins currently working on them to work on other areas that are backlogged. As for NOTNOW nominations, a big-red-letter note saying "Nominations by people without the experienced and trusted user-right are almost always ended early under WP:NOTNOW. If you believe you qualify for this user-right, see page instructing users how to get this user-right. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, in most cases this proposal pushes the NOTNOW problem from RFA to the lesser privilege. Individual administrators will still have to say "no, you are new here, stick around and ask for this privilege in a few months" but it wouldn't clutter up RFA. This way it only takes up the time of one admin not that of everyone who monitors RFA. In a few cases over-eager new editors will insist on self-nominating for adminship but the number should go way down as most will request this lesser user-right instead. It's a worthwhile change. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• On the plus side, there still is the issue of unbundling the tools (not that I'm any more confident than Beeblebrox is that there will be consensus for doing so). What strikes me as a partial shortcoming of this proposal is that there are two "big deal" powers: content deletion, as stated above, but also user blocking, which is every bit as much of a "big deal". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)(edit conflict)Any user who would want these tools, but would NOTNOW out of sysopship should not have the extra tools thus not really solving the NOTNOW problem. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 23:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

This proposal would not grant either of the big-deal tools you mention to non-admins. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

IMO, I don't think adminship should be unbundled. At least in the areas you mention, there are not too many backloggs. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 23:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Tofu. At the very least I give a strong no to the suggestion "View Special:Unwatchedpages to aide in vandalism-detection" as that one requires a higher level of trust than most others do. The only unbundle I could see as getting enough support would be a creation of the Commons "filemover" right on Wikipeida, as it is a) a low risk tool to give out, b) already functions elsewhere (Commons) and would be easy to transfer over, and c) is rather useful to a select group of people (myself included) that deal in files on a regular basis. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I really dislike the idea of giving out a "blank and protect" button as lots of speedy deletions are for copyvio or because the first attempt at creating an article was unsourced and didn't explain why the subject is notable. In my view there are way too many errors at speedy deletion tagging to unbundle anything there. I'm happy to see a proportion of attack pages get salted but don't like the idea of salting speediable pages become the norm and the power to do it be unbundled. I have given one or two RFA candidates tools like Rollback, but my experience is that apart from the notnow candidates most RFA candidates already have Rollback, Autopatrolled or both if they qualify for them. However there were lots of editors out there who should be made Autopatrollers and there is currently a big drive on to find and flag them. I suspect something similar could usefully be done for rollbackers, I wonder how many nonrollbackers regularly file AIV reports? ϢereSpielChequers 09:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I share the dislike for unbundling anything to do with Speedy Deletion, as it's possibly the area where I see the most mistakes - I often remove incorrect CSD tags from articles. (A lot of people just don't read the criteria properly, think "This needs to be deleted", and just pick from the most likely-sounding category title.) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• I am generally very supportive of proposals (perennial or not) to unbundle admin rights, but I don't think that NOTNOW rfas serve as any real motivator to do so. As was said above most NOTNOW rfas come from grossly un or under qualified candidates who wouldn't be given a specific user right anyway. The actual dearth of RFAs is arguably a combination of lower numbers of long term editors in the main and lowered conversion from long term editors to admins, with a healthy debate possible about causes for the former and the latter (I tend to see bots, EF, and rollback as substitutes for admins, so the introduction of those probably has a stronger effect on admin creation than we like to think at WT:RFA, but I digress). The only serious drawback to unbundling the tools is a paradoxical one. Once a big portion of the tools are unbundled, adminship will become MORE about social status and being a "super user" (not in the unix sense) than it is today simply because the purely technical reason to give all of the bits (the byte? Ok I'm done) will be less relevant. We may find that people who like be ing janitors will want to be admins once again but if you can delete pages or protect things or whatever and not be an admin than the social part becomes more relevant. I'm much less worried about admin rights being misused if they are handed out piecemeal. Protonk (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I just have a dislike for unbundling anything. I don't see how it would stop it SNOWing, and I don't see how it would improve the climate at RfA so that the experienced editors that are really needed and who are reticent of running the gauntlet will be more ready to come forward and run for office. Unbundling would need a catalogue of quals establishing for the various rights, and we would end up having an extremely granular system of prmissions such as you get on phpBB, for example, leaving, as Protonk suggests, admins with more of an aura of social status and being a "super user" - a bit like in a traditional British school where the prefects don't actually do much more than prowl around looking for issues they can interfere with where they can exert their influence. Kudpung (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess I am not convinced that closing RfAs early which will obviously fail is an actual problem. And I think that improving the climate of RfA is only important insofar as adminship is important. If we can diminish the functional importance of admins to the site, caring about who is naughty on a project page becomes meaningless. Protonk (talk) 01:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• The first three bullet points I agree with. There are several content editors that I would go as far as saying shouldn't be admins, but are unquestionably trustworthy when it comes to our content. On the other hand, I see no need for pseudo deletion, and Unwatchedpages probably ought not be handed out at the discretion of just one person, however respected that one person might be. —WFC— 04:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I've been fairly inactive over the last year or so, but whatever happened to vandalfighter? This seems to be an extended version of that proposal, one that makes sense primarily for those who are already rollbackers engaged in vandal patrol. I don't have a problem extending these rights to more people provided they be easily losable. Perhaps the ability to protect should be limited to semiprot to remove its chance of usage as an editwarring tool, but other than that it seems sensible. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, if we're going to wade down that path, here's my suggestion:
  • Requirements: Rollbacker, reviewer, etc.
  • Abilities: Semiprot 6 hours, block non-autoconfirmed 2 hours. I think that would handle 95% of the cases vandal fighters encounter, without having enough authority to do much damage.
  • Not integrated with Huggle, etc. Requires manual use.
  • Easily losable. Any admin should be able to both grant and revoke these privileges; having it revoked once should make regaining it very difficult. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

All valid ideas, but vandalfighter and this proposal (while similar insofar as both would involve unbundling) are two very different proposals, tailored towards two very different types of editor. —WFC— 05:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I just went back and re-read and saw I basically took the "this would exclude" part as the proposal. Don't know quite what I was thinking, there. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• From my perspective, this ExperiencedContentEditor is the first unbundling suggestion that makes perfect sense. I would, however, make autopatrolled, rollback, and reviewer rights a prerequisite for, not a subset of, these rights, and I would strictly map it to changing content--no deletion rights, no blocking abilities. In return, I would not restrict the time for which protection levels could be changed. An editor so equipped could work on some currently admin-only backlogs (e.g. DYK queues). --Pgallert (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

adminship to post image

Request adminship to post image.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbtrend (talk • contribs) 21:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jbtrend, and welcome to Wikipedia. You don't need to be an admin to upload an image to Wikipedia - but you do need to be autoconfirmed which takes 4 days and ten edits. If you pop over to the helpdesk a volunteer there will be able to help further. (cross posting to users talk) Pedro :  Chat  22:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, ya beat me to his talk page. I was going to point him to WP:Files for upload. 28bytes (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah - now you see I didn't even know that existed...! Hopefully that will help Jbtrend out as well. Thanks 28bytes. Pedro :  Chat  22:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Ha, I forgot all about this. I used it when I first started years ago to have some images uploaded. – SMasters (talk) 12:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Or Commons. Don't need to be confirmed for that.  Chzz  ►  18:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Drat. I saw Chzz and Requests for adminship appear on the same line on my watchlist, and it got my hopes up. Alas, it's back to waiting. Will you please just run already? Sven Manguard Wha? 18:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Support Chzz, would make a great admin...oh wait, this is the talk page. (sigh) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 02:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• How weird, I was just thinking that myself, and then came to this page.--SPhilbrickT 22:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Are we too kind sometimes?

I've been looking back over some repeat RfA failures, and something that's bothering me a bit is that a lot of us try to be very kind to newbies when opposing their WP:NOTINAMILLIONYEARS RfA runs, and I'm concerned that being too kind is perhaps setting them up for future falls. I know I do it - I write something like "I hope I'll be able to support a new RfA in 6 months or so", while in my mind I'm really thinking "There's more chance of my cat becoming Pope than you making admin". In other cases I've said such kind things when I'm talking to minors who I know will need at least several years more maturity before standing a chance. Obviously, I'm not suggesting we should be rude to no-hopers, but are we perhaps doing more harm than good by throwing them hopelessly unrealistic lifelines, and would it not be better to be more honest about their actual prospects? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I, for one, will throw lifelines to people that have spent six months doing good work, but will just politely oppose (i.e. saying something more than "NOTNOW", you know, like actual sentences) the ones that spend six hours doing good work. I would think that you can't be too kind, however you can toy with people's hopes by giving them unrealistic expectations. The kind thing to do would be to explain why they are not ready, using actual words forming a few sentences. However saying "come back in X time" to people who you don't think will be ready in X time isn't really kindness. Does that make sense? (Sorry if it doesn't, I'm kinda sleepy ATM) Sven Manguard Wha? 18:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

What Sven said. "Come back in three months" isn't helpful unless the only thing keeping you from supporting them is their length of time on the project. "Improve X, Y and Z and I will consider supporting next time" is much more useful to the candidate... if they prove unable to improve X, Y and Z, then at least you haven't given them any false promises when they come back in three months or whenever. 28bytes (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I also would love to mandate that all candidates read, cover to cover, Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list before they apply. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Probably only by pointing them in the nicest possible way to our suggestions of minimum requirements with an equally friendly hint about the maturity thing in the case of obvious minors who have appeared not to have understood that Wikipedia is not another 'cool blog' as I have seen it referred to by barnstar addicted-adolescents. I haven't checked back, but I would assume the majority of no-hopers to come from the lower end of the age spectrum. --Kudpung (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It's important to avoid setting false expectations. If somebody is doing good work and likely to be a productive member of the project but so far they've only worked in one particular area and notched up 200 edits, it would be silly to say "come back in 3 months". But how often does that happen? Promising future RfA support is probably setting an unrealistic expectation in many cases, but for every !voter who tries to soften the blow there's another who bluntly says "You're not good enough". Anyway, each candidate is different so we have to use common sense and judgement in this. I don't think we have an overwhelming problem of NOTNOW candidates coming here for a second RfA whilst they're still wildly unsuitable. So it's probably not worth much navel-gazing, as we probably have other bigger problems even if we'll never get consensus here on exactly what those problem are.

For the folk here who like to !vote on RfAs, the rare candidates who are both totally unsuitable and repeat-visitors must be grist to the mill; for folk here who don't like to !vote on RfAs, what are you doing here?

There's one repeat visitor that I'm looking out for; certainly not a WP:NOTNOW but somebody who has been through many previous RfAs and appears to have attempted a clean start recently. I expect their new account will RfA sooner or later too. I also expect that they will not disclose their personal history when they apply. That's the kind of candidate that we should worry about, not the occasional affable newbie who has two months experience and lays it all on the table. bobrayner (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you're right that it's probably not a big issue - it just struck me that I was guilty of the "3 to 6 months" underestimates, and I'm going to try to be more realistic. I guess what really counts is explaining *why* people fail, and if they can grasp that then the actual timescale shouldn't really matter - although I do see some who seem fixed on the "Has it been long enough yet?" notion. (I also suspect I have the same person on my "watch out for" list too ) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... I wonder if it's the same one I have on my list. Kudpung (talk) 07:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I sometimes think the Wikipedia community is not nice enough to less experienced users, especially in this neck of the woods. It's bad enough crushing someone's present hopes, even if it is a case of WP:NOTINAMILLIONYEARS. So give them as much encouragement as possible to spend more time getting to grips with things (if they can be bothered with it). Otherwise, they just won't, and then people will ironically moan that there's not enough RfAs. Treat people as you would like to be treated yourself, especially if you were brave enough to submit yourself to being hung, drawn and quartered by the (all too often) vicious, quarrelling and bitey RfA community...have a heart. Orphan Wiki 17:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: "So give them as much encouragement as possible" - Yes, I agree, but it must be realistic encouragement. Saying "come back in 3 months" when they clearly still won't have a hope then? I think that is likely to do more harm than good. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, yes, that can be unhelpful. But realistic encouragement can't be in short supply, ever. Nor must we ever regard ourselves as too kind in this area, when we're just not. Orphan Wiki 17:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not a boolean, black-or-white choice. It's perfectly possible to say "Sorry, I don't think you have the kind of experience necessary to be an administrator, but the work you're already doing is really good". That approach doesn't set false expectations and it encourages competent editors to go away and do more competent editing. Sadly, I've seen a veteran here criticise !voters who offered such moral support; I cannot fathom the reasoning that we might somehow improve wikipedia by being mean to enthusiastic new recruits, when it's already clear that the recruit won't be granted the mop. bobrayner (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Oooh, I've been zinged. Boy has that remark been twisted around a few times. My point was and is that giving "moral support" to someone who is doing something manifestly ignorant may encourage them to do it again. Since you aren't actually supporting them it's a lie as well. It's possible to be honest, fair, and friendly at the same time without the silly fiction of "moral support." They need to be encouraged to keep editing Wikipedia, while being discouraged from nominating themselves when they are grossly unqualified and have obviously not even read the RFA page. "Moral support" doesn't do that. Personal, non-templated messages in your own words can. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I broadly agree with your comments, and my frustration stems from much older (and harsher) comments by a different editor. But let's not rake over old coals; and I apologise for inadvertently burning your ears. bobrayner (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The issue, of course, is we're rather nice and overly kind to newbies and like a bunch of baying harpies to reasonably well established editors. And that goes for all aspects of RFA. Challenging "vested editors" supports or opposes is close to wiki-suicide. Pedro :  Chat  21:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: "My point was and is that giving "moral support" to someone who is doing something manifestly ignorant may encourage them to do it again". That's a good point that I hadn't really thought about. I've done it. I've given "Moral support" !votes intended to mean that I'm offering support for the candidate as an editor - but of course, it's easy to see it as moral support for a future admin run! Doh! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Despite my own hatred of the sheer nastiness of the RfA process, I agree w/ Sven that a 'moral support' doesn't help. An oppose does not need to be cruel; it can simply, and clearly, give good reasons - and in doing so, can explain what would need to change, in order to pass at a future time. To become an administrator, a user should be perfectly capable of accepting appropriate constructive criticism - including an oppose at RfA; if they can't, they're not a great candidate anyway. Kinda "firm but fair".Having said that, someone will probably dig through my contribs and find me making a 'moral support', and thus hypocritical. Meh; Consensushzz can change.  Chzz  ►  17:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I've always been baffled by the touchy-feely Moral Supports that some regulars gift in the support section to obviously unqualified candidates. Since Moral Supports posted in the Support section count as Support votes in the tally, they force extra community members to cast Oppose votes to counterweight them to ensure that the RFA will close early, as is appropriate when consensus is clear. Townlake (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

If we start from the assumption that a closing 'crat will interpret moral supports of obviously unqualified candidates as genuine support, and that nobody will close the RfA as NOTNOW... then perhaps the only way to prevent new-but-idealistic people polluting the project is to ensure that 90% of their rejections are direct and explicit. But those may not be entirely appropriate starting assumptions. bobrayner (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Transferring over "filemover" tool

Per suggestion, moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Transferring over "filemover" tool

Sven Manguard Wha? 21:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Addihockey10/Admin-by-function

Yet another proposal for unbundling the Sysop tools, I don't think the Anti-Vandalism admin is going to go anywhere (personally), however, I believe the commons helper "right" has some potential as there is a HUGE commons backlog (dating back to 2008). --Addihockey10 ^e-mail 04:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Please comment, criticize, and/or make suggestions on the draft. Thanks. --Addihockey10 ^e-mail 04:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Limit questions to one per user

Just seen this and think it is completely inappropriate to post that many questions to an RFA - especially as they are all bog-standard questions that can be found on any RFA. What is the point in asking all those questions? I'm particularly interested in the purpose of question 11, which seems to just be adding yet another question for the "fun" of it. I propose we limit questions to one per user, and if users have any genuine questions they can ask the candidate on the talk page. RFAs are long enough without loads of questions, which many people don't even read. AD 13:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest a maximum of two per user as a compromise. That wouldn't necessarily prevent an RfA being overloaded with silly questions. However, it would have prevented the problem you refer to. In addition, some of the sensible/useful questions at RfAs do sometimes seem to come in pairs (either both at the same time or with one initial question then a supplemental question from the same user) and I don't have total confidence that the same coverage would be achieved by more editors stepping in with similar questions, if editors were strictly limited to one each. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The idea would be to lower the number, not keep it the same, so one would be plenty. Follow-up questions would be fine, but any person can ask a question on the candidate's talk page if they are genuinely interested. If they are not interested, and just posting for "fun" or to boost their edit count, we don't lose anything. AD 13:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I don't necessarily see a need for an arbitrary limit, but I do think people need to think harder about whether questions are actually useful, or just trying to be clever. I've mentioned why I don't like one of these questions, and no 11 is equally silly. Does it really tell you anything about the quality of a potential admin? Clearly not.--Korruski^Talk 13:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Alternative idea: how about not putting a limit on the overall number of questions each user can ask, but instead put in a guideline saying each user can only ask a question at a time and can't ask a follow up or a new question until their first/previous question has been answered by the candidate? Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 14:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd go with that. My concern is people seem to have so many questions to ask, but often don't even bother voting or refer to the questions again. Questions should be asked considerately, it takes time to answer carefully, and when many enjoy putting trick questions so that they get to oppose, it needs even more time. AD 14:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I like that idea too - it means people can still ask valid extra questions if they need to, but it will help prevent the kind of flood we're seeing in the latest RfA. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

"Optional" questions should be banned entirely. The candidate's record should stand on its own merits. The standard RFA gauntlet quiz, be it one question per user or six, presents voters an easy pathway to reshape the voting process into a mini-job interview, contributing to RFA's perceived difficulty with little real offsetting value added to the process. Legitimate questions should appear on the RFA talk page as discussion items; talk pages exist for a reason, which isn't solely to be a repository for user statistics. Townlake (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)