Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Eostrix

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.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Automatic semi-protection by MusikBot II

Because of a recent update (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive337#Update on template protector bot) following an RfC, MusikBot II is treating this RfA page as a high-risk template. It seems like the high transclusion count is coming from {{RFX report}} or similar templates, so vandalism on this page wouldn't actually propagate that far, right? Effectively, this would automatically bar IP editors from commenting in any future RfA, and I'm wondering if this was an unintended consequence. DanCherek (talk) 18:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DanCherek, I think your read is correct, and I do not think there is currently community consensus to semi RfA pages automatically. MusikAnimal, any chance you could add an exclusion for Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/*? GeneralNotability (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I came for this too - I'd be against protection on this page without a discussion. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Zzuuzz at Special:Diff/1050422821. DanCherek (talk) 19:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to DanCherek for raising this and Zzuuzz for the fix! I wasn't around to address this when I was first pinged, but per the documentation any admin should feel free to unprotect and exclude whichever page(s) from the bot as desired. Apologies for the inconvenience. This is the first RfA since the protection threshold for semi-protection was lowered, hence why we didn't catch this until now. Regards, — MusikAnimal ^talk 13:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bifurcated adminship

@North8000: I disagree with your suggestion that The admin role needs to be informally bifurcated. For a few years this newer individual should stay in category that does not discipline other confirmed editors or handle heavy duty contentious situations. We need more admins who are willing to assist and intervene, and we should not discourage them from serving the project to the best of their abilities. If people are good and are motivated enough to pass an RfA, there should be no formal or informal limits on how they can use their admin tools. In fact, I think that it's a good idea for younger admins to tackle conflicts involving confirmed editors and that we should encourage that within reason. JBchrch talk 19:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say I agree either. A few years? I hit the ground running at SPI shortly after becoming an admin, and while I admit I made my share of mistakes, I think I was a significant positive. Restricting where admins can use their tools is also a perennially opposed proposal, if memory serves (as "limited adminship"). Either we trust someone with the mop (and, more importantly, trust them to know when not to use the mop) or we don't. If we don't trust someone enough to step back or ask for help in new and unfamiliar situations, we should not give them a mop, period. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds a lot like the new function of "Code Enforcement Officer", where one has to undergo WMF-sanctioned training and "declare their respect for and adherence to the UCoC", per the proposed enforcement guidelines. Apparently we're incapable of deciding for ourselves who we trust. Vexations (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "know when not to use the mop" goes a long way. My "Support" vote in essence said that I trust them on that. But "trust" is an overgeneralized word. I have people who I would trust with all of my passwords, bank accounts, and keys to my hours but not to remember our lunch appointment. I don't think that most would not make the distinction, hence RFA being broken, and the reason for my comment. North8000 (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then substitute trust in my comment with "have a high level of confidence that the administrative powers granted will be used responsibly and with integrity in the future, based on prior behaviour". That's a bit long, but it's what I meant. Vexations (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vexations: Cool. North8000 (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict, responding only to JBchrch) @JBchrch: Thanks for the post and ping. We disagree, (although maybe not with your "best of their abilities" qualifier) but my intentions for saying that are probably not what you think. Most importantly they are to fix the broken RFA process. We need more new admins, and also to have at least some of them evolving to where they have the abilities and confidence of others to handle disciplining other experienced editors and handling heavy duty contentious situation. The fact that even the newest admin an technically do all of those things makes getting the mop actually a very big deal and the RFA process rightfully hard to get through. Basically the two mathematically large groups in our current admin pool are "got in back when it was easy" or "does only gnome work". The bifurcation would help get a lot more new admins. North8000 (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000: Well don't I look like an idiot now! 😅 JBchrch talk 04:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JBchrch: Thanks for the humility but not really. I think that this only slightly and only indirectly reinforces my argument. The fact that we're desperate enough to be considering candidates that we don't really know yet (only 2 years in Wikipedia) is indicative of the problems which bifurcation would solve. BTW multiple identities are usually a perfectly fine thing in the real world but are a mortal sin in Wikipedia. Which could indicate that they just have not wiki-evolved yet and could be a fine candidate years from now. North8000 (talk) 14:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One can point out though that many of our most experienced admins got the mop with less than 2 years experience under their belts. Regards So Why 14:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I supported this RFA because I believed that they would self limit until they gained more experience. Actually, I think that the only folks that get through RFA just do only (good and needed) gnome work anyway. North8000 (talk) 21:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

lack of experience in content disputes

TrangaBellam, I decided not to post this in direct response to your neutral because I wanted it to feel more like discussion. Admins don't deal with content disputes. Admins deal with behavior. It's when an interaction becomes a behavioral problem that admins need to step in. Whether or not that interaction had anything to do with a content dispute is completely irrelevant, and admins are absolutely prohibited from using admin tools where they've had a content dispute. —valereee (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You edit in food history, which is a (regrettably, neglected) branch of history. Any decent introduction to historical methods teaches us about the importance of critical reading of texts, beyond what they immediately convey. I suggest you apply that to this particular wiki policy/guideline (of admins and content-disputes) rather than engage in a textual reading.

How would you administrate at AE, where half of the complaints concern the politest of POV pushers, who seldom breach any of the black-and-white policies? If you refuse to use tools at content disputes with negligible behavioral issues (see this AE request for an example), the overall editorial atmosphere would be relatively worse off. We have a set of non-behavioral policies governing the inclusion and exclusion of content, and their violations are penalizable to varying extents.

I agree that admins are absolutely prohibited from using admin tools where they've had a content dispute but that is irrelevant to my point. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 20:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I perform administrative duties at AE in the same way I perform them anywhere else: without regard to content and disputes over content. Civil POV pushers do breach behavioral policies. I actually almost weighed in at that AE with a kneejerk "Of course a page move is an edit" but didn't at that time have time to do the rereading I felt was necessary. That's not a content dispute. It's a behavior dispute. Perhaps we're having a semantic difference here, so let me clarify: No admin should be weighing in in an administrative capacity on content. Period. —valereee (talk) 21:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, @TrangaBellam, what non-behavioral policies govern the inclusion/exclusion of content? Can you give me a link for the policies you're referring to? I think we must be talking semantics here. —valereee (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also if there are WP policies that require a critical rather than a textual reading, we should totally fix that. —valereee (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I actually almost weighed in at that AE with a kneejerk "Of course a page move is an edit" - I think that you are mistaken? I was pointing to the AE thread concerned with Shakespeare143, not the one just below. Check the link anchor.

Talk pages of Indo-Aryan migrations and similar articles are filled with editors pushing fringe theories despite a mountain of evidence against them — all without breaching any apparent policy. There are hardly three (or four) active editors in the area but about fifty spammers every year and admins need to base their sanctions on the understanding that Indigenous Aryanism is fringe nonsense.

An user-essay makes a very interesting point in this aspect, Administrators are frequently called in to settle content disputes. You must settle these on the merits of the content, as that's what the reader cares about. In my experience, administrators who don't do much content work have a tendency to favour content disputes towards the editor who has been around the longest (especially if that editor is another administrator)[2] as they aren't experienced enough to know the specifics.

I have no interest in prolonging this discussion. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.