Wikipedia talk:Administrators/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 23

BN request from Andrew C

No, I'm not him, I read about it on the BN board. It was turned down for no other reason other than inactivity. Since I can't post on the crat board, as I'm not a crat, I thought I'd protest the decision. Andrew C's RFA had 61 supports, 1 decline and 1 neutral. He has a clean record on Wikipedia (way cleaner than mine), and declining his request and actually requesting him to go back through RFA again is moronic. We have WP:IAR for a reason, it would seem to fit for this reason.  ►К Ф Ƽ Ħ◄  R.I.P Trip Halstead 12:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@KoshVorlon: FYI, "Trip Halstead" is "Tripp Halstead." —SerialNumberParanoia/^{cheap shit room} 13:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@KoshVorlon: 1) "The Bureaucrats' noticeboard is a place where items related to the Bureaucrats can be discussed and coordinated. Any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here." 2) Admin inactivity was the whole reason behind the recently concluded RFC above. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Crats kinda aren't allowed to IAR unless it is by ignoring a request and pretending they didn't see it (as no volunteer with advanced permissions can be forced to use them). The whole point of 'crats is that they only act within established policy and consensus, not on a whim. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

User:TonyBallioni WP:IAR is an established policy.  ►К Ф Ƽ Ħ◄  R.I.P Tripp Halstead 13:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure, and 'crats ignore the IAR policy. Their role is to only act with regards to admin rights based on the WP:ADMIN policy and community consensus through a relevant RfA. We want it that way. I don't want a 'crat removing might bit for funsies one day, nor do I want him granting it to his friend from back in the day that got desysoped for inactivity 5 years ago but was a good admin then. The role is very different than the admin role. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but the canard that IAR is policy, while one of my favorite retorts, requires actually reading WP:IAR. The policy states, in full, If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. For the reasons Tony mentioned above, the entire point of bureaucrats on enWiki is to be bureaucratic and follow the rules. While Andrew may deserve to have his sysop bit, there's no argument that a segment of bureaucrats ignoring their role's description would improve Wikipedia. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, Amory, I did actually read it. Re-equipping a sysop that was voted in on a landslide victory, who has no issues with the bit, would definetly help to at least maintain or improve Wikipedia. (Improve in that we're always short on Sysops , to say the least). This is a great case for WP:IAR.  ►К Ф Ƽ Ħ◄  R.I.P Tripp Halstead 21:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• Just my bit that I do feel that an inactive desysopped admin who has not yet received a notice of at least a week about the new rule, should not have had his request for the bits rejected. Of course, I agree – the five year thing is perfect and I'm all for it. It's just a matter of decency; if we have been notifying admins of impending desysops because of inactivity, then we should have first informed the inactive desysopped admins and then brought them under the net of the new rule. Lourdes 14:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• Maybe, but that wasn't part of the RfC, so we can't really say there's consensus to only start the five year timer now. If anything, I think most participants specifically wanted it to apply to editors who had already been away. Besides, there's a silly devil's advocate argument to be made that, if the new policy was enough to get them out of retirement (if only briefly), anyone staying up to date on policies would have been aware of it, and thus wouldn't need to be notified. At any rate, I mostly agree with you, but I don't read that the RfC does. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• As the architect of the new rule, I have to say this is exactly the situation it was aimed at. I don’t recall interacting with this admin before and have nothing against them personally, but they flew through RFA back when it was easy, quit using their tools seven years ago, and quit editing entirely in 2016. They haven’t really been an admin in a very long time. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Reverts discussion clarity

@Amorymeltzer: It might be good to clarify what you disagree with.

You have reverted my edit about changing "Users and IP's" -> "Editors" and I replied by modifying it in this edit.

You then reverted my edit about page linking, unrelated (?) to the other revert. Regarding that, I disagree with the change back to Main article, since the guide is not the main article, but something prospective candidate should also see if they are interested in becoming an administrator. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 15:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, unrelated. As I said, I disagree: when it comes to "becoming an administrator" I would absolutely say the guide should be linked as the main page. WP:RfA itself is arguably the main page, but I think it's patently unhelpful to link that page prominently. The guide is helpful, and links to plenty of other documents like WP:RFAADVICE, and is probably the main place someone interested should start their reading. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

First designs for Special:Block with Granular blocks

The Anti-Harassment Tools team enlisted the assistance of Alex Hollender, a User Experience designer at Wikimedia Foundation to create wireframe designs of the Special:Block with the Granular block feature included. Our first wireframes are based on the discussions on the Granular block talk page, Wishlist proposal, and Phabricator to date.

Because the Special:Block page is already at its limits with its current layout and we would like to propose a new organized layout for Special:Block. This will make it easier to add the granular blocking (page, category, namespace, etc) and whatever is to come in the future. All of the same functionality is available on this new layout, but in a more organized, step-by-step process.

Take a look at the wireframe and leave us your feedback. For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Interface administrators

I have started a discussion about the new interface administrator user group at WP:VPM#RFC: Interface administrators and transition. Please take a moment to review and/or comment. --Izno (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)