Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Evad37

This is an RfA talk page.

While voting and most discussion should occur on the main RfA page, sometimes discussions stray off-topic or otherwise clutter that page. The RfA talk page serves to unclutter the main RfA page by hosting discussions that are not related to the candidacy.

Please remain calm and civil in discussions on both pages, avoiding personal attacks and harassment. Uninvolved administrators can still fully intervene in RfAs.
Discussions should stay on-topic; consider moving or continuing discussions that are going off-topic elsewhere.
Move discussions not germane to the candidacy here, then link them with {{subst:rfan|dm|name of section header}}, indented to the original vote. Be conservative in using the template; obvious trolls and disruptive participants need not be noticed.
Otherwise, avoid starting discussions here if they would be of interest to RfA participants and can fit on the main RfA page; generally, discussions should begin at the "General comments" section or as an indented reply to a vote.

Ability of non-admins to become IAdmins

Is it time to revisit the current policy that only admins may request interface-administrator rights? I notice that much of the discussion has been about the requirement to first become an admin before becoming an interface-administrator.

Previous discussions

Wikipedia talk:Interface administrators/Archive 1#Sysop as requirement: It's a close call, but after carefully considering the arguments, at this time, this right can only be given to admins at this time.
Wikipedia talk:Interface administrators/Archive 3#Allow non-admins to request access?: Welp, consensus is pretty divided on this one so it is my assessment that non-admins will not be allowed to request access to interface administrator at the this time.

If there is any appetite for another RfC, I'd be happy to work on drafting one. Thoughts? --DannyS712 (talk) 07:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the skill set required by interface administrators is somewhat independent of the skill set required for other administrative tasks. Interface administrators require more technical skill, whereas other administrators require more people and policy skills (eg to close discussion, resolved disputes, block/unblock editors). Both require a great deal of trust, but it is easy to imagine an editor whose technical skill (and motives) we trust to edit CSS/JS/JSON pages, but whose knowledge of policies/process and people skills are not so good. Such a person would be a good interface administrator, but perhaps not such a good general administrator. It would be shame to not have access to the technical skills because we didn't trust the policy knowledge and people skills. It might be useful to be able to give some users the ability to do the advanced technical stuff, without giving them the ability to invoke administrative privileges that required policy/people skills, eg dispute resolution, policy disputes block/unblock editors etc.

The above is a general comment, in response to the general question of whether IAdmins should be admins. It is not in any way indicative of my opinion of Evad37.

Mitch Ames (talk) 07:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd point out that because an IAdmin can change the JS for everyone on the site, they could, technically, steal an admin's session and do whatever they wanted. So, at the end of the day, either way we're giving Evad (for example) the technical ability to use admin tools and trusting his word that they won't. Given that we're functionally trusting them with admin tools, it makes sense go through RfA. Gaelan 💬✏️ 07:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaelan: True, but since July everyone using the afchelper gadget has been running Enterprisey's code (see MediaWiki:Gadget-afchelper.js at line 13) and I'm sure there are other cases. By importing a user script we already trust the creators; would it be technically possible to allow users to edit user and site js/css/json without being able to edit the pages that everyone uses (common js/css and all of the skins)? Or, alternatively, something similar to what meta does for admins? Just a thought... --DannyS712 (talk) 07:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfA is open to community. However, IA must gain high trust in the community. Also, IA must know our policy very well. I think the best choice is going through RfA. BTW, why not open this discussion in WT:RFA instead of here? Hhkohh (talk) 08:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hhkohh: I just wanted to get a sense of if an RfC should be opened; its pretty relevant to this specific RfA, so I brought it up here. --DannyS712 (talk) 08:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well I do not think we should reopen RfC. First, we have WP:IANB. That is where non-interadmin request interadmin do something. Second, editusercss, edituserjs, editsitecss and editsitejs is only open to interadmins. This is very sensible. Editors should not edit user js and css when the target editor is active. The site JS and css also should not be edited unless there is an error or consensus. The consensus should be closed by a very high-trust editor. Third, JSON must be edited by high-trust editors. Although you do not need RfA to prove you are a high-trust editor. But I think RfA is the best one to do so. Hhkohh (talk) 08:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think this conversation belongs here, DannyS712. It's a distraction from the RfA itself and is orthogonal to the subject. This isn't really an appropriate location, and you'd be much better served having it at WT:RFA, WT:INTADMIN, etc. Moreover, in about 4.5 days nobody will participate on this page ever again, so it's a poor place to place an archive of a discussion. I'm obviously involved with this RfA, but I think your question would be better served by moving this wholesale elsewhere. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since Evad37 will soon receive both qualifications, this user is not the best test-case to discuss if we should select inter-admins that are not already general admins. Pldx1 (talk) 15:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the RFC, Enterprisey and Evad37 have requested privileges that, in their hands, can benefit the community. Wonderful. Not a reason to overturn the RFC. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Activity requirements

Question 14 and some of the comments regarding admins' activity requirements seem mistaken. WP:INACTIVITY specifies that the tools are removed on procedural grounds after an admin has been inactive for 12 months and doesn't respond to attempts to contact them. If they return within the next two years the tools are restored upon request. As such, there's no problem with admins being inactive for a few months. I'm usually away from Wikipedia for a month a year, for instance, and quite a few admins dip in and out of Wikipedia while still using the tools well. Nick-D (talk) 09:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Q14 and it was no mistake. When I reviewed the candidate's activity, I noticed some gaps last year. These seemed significant because there are often significant consequences and follow-up actions as a result of admin activity. For example, if an admin deletes something, there might then be an appeal at DRV. In this case, the candidate proposes to work on important, widely-used scripts, using admin privilege to release and update them. Such scripts are complex and so require ongoing technical support in case there are bugs or incompatibilities with other updates. Now, of course, it is reasonable for any of us to take a break – in many organisations, staff are required to take annual leave. The point was to ask what arrangements the candidate would make to cover such absences. The candidate's answer seemed a bit weak but I considered it adequate, given that this is a volunteer, unpaid position. Andrew D. (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]