Wikipedia talk:Request an account/Procedures

Pre-implementation resolutions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Sockpuppetry blocks

"Blocks on other Wikimedia projects may be taken into account if they are for matters such as outing or sockpuppetry."

Yes

1. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
2. But recommend should rather than may. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 14:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Concur Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
4. FunPika 10:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

No

Discussion

Quorum for admin nominations

"Should we have a quorum?? For example, x% of current tool users must support otherwise the nomination fails."

Yes

If voting yes please include what you think the quorum should be.

No

Leave it up to tool admins to discuss if there are enough votes in close calls.

1. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Mlpearc (powwow) 04:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Joshua Issac (talk) 22:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
4. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 15:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
6. FunPika 10:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

WP:Avoid instruction creep. 'nuf said. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 15:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Should we set a length of nomination

Yes

1. 7-14 days, we shouldn't be dragging it out for longer than 7 days except if there aren't enough votes to decide. If there still aren't enough votes after 14 days then there isn't a consensus to promote. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Per Callanecc. Mlpearc (powwow) 04:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
3. 7-10 days with promotion or no consensus by day 14. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 15:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
4. 7–14 days per Callanecc and Doctree. --Joshua Issac (talk) 19:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
5. FunPika 10:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

No

Discussion

Re-promotion

Former tool admins may be re-promoted if they have not been suspended from the tool for more than x time. Please state how long you think this should be.

• Three months. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I think DocTree among others have made good points regarding taking a break for things like school terms so I can see the benefit in the time period being six months. As long as the repromoting admin has confirmed that the returning admin is aware of any changes to policy etc. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• (ec) Before the ec I was supporting six months, but now I feel more comfortable at three. Mlpearc (powwow) 04:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
• At least four but prefer six months. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 16:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• At most a year, but I would prefer 6–8 months. --Joshua Issac (talk) 19:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• As policies and such change often, I think three months is a better time frame. As long as they weren't suspended or asked for their access to be removed to avoid anything (i.e. left under a cloud), there shouldn't be an issue. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• Abstaining since as a former tool admin who was suspended for over two years I'm afraid I might have a conflict on interest on this one. FunPika 10:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • @FunPika: I think in this case your opinion would be helpful and informative. What do you think is an acceptable waiting time? Do you think we should make former admins wait at all? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    • My opinion here is that after six months a former tool admin should have to wait a reasonable amount of time (maybe a month or two) so that they can show that they are up to date on recent changes to policies and the guide. After that amount of time any tool admin at their discretion could promote the user without a mailing list discussion unless they have any serious concerns that they feel should require a mailing list discussion. I see no real reason to require a discussion by default here. FunPika 21:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm assuming this is "re-promoted on the fly" ? With or without much discussion. Mlpearc (powwow) 04:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah so a former tool admin asks you to unsuspend and re-promote them because they were suspended for inactivity. How much inactivity is ok before it needs to be discussed on a mailing list (including how much time they should spend as a non-admin user? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Inactivity or voluntary demotion is often due to real life situations like an unusually rugged semester at school, a major project for those working or a health issue for seniors. Most of those last longer than three months. I agree that after six more months of inactivity, the returning tool admin should take time to get up-to-date before taking any action reserved for tool admins. I would agree to a year of inactivity without another poll of the whole group. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 16:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Doctree's comment above, and would support re-promotion for former admins who have been inactive for no longer than a year, provided that they have shown that they are up-to-date on all relevant changes to procedure that have happened in their absence. --Joshua Issac (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Certainly no longer than a year, I would suggest six months, or even three. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Other discussion

Some niggles:

• For newcomers or someone just stumbling onto the page, edit the lead to make it more clear that the page is about ACC tool administrators, their selection, promotion and demotion, and duties.
• Re-order the sections to provide, in my opinion, a more logical progression. Rather than start with banning, start with Selection, promotion and demotion (Renamed from Promotion and demotion. Separate headings for Selection and promotion and Demotion and re-promotion are another possibility.). Then list the responsibilities and activities of tool admins. My suggested order is:

1. Selection, promotion and demotion
2. Approving and suspending tool users
3. Mailing list and IRC channels
4. Banning
5. Force breaking reservations
6. Editing comments
7. Resetting old requests
8. Changes to policy or procedures

• For consistency with the guide, please refer to Wikipedia administrators as sysops within this page.

The page is good as-is for those somewhat familiar with ACC, especially if s/he followed the mailing list for the last few months. When I read the page, though, I thought about what I would have thought of it as a new ACC user. It was only a few months ago that I became a tool user. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 00:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I've added some more general information about tool admins and changed to sysop.

However regarding the section headings, I don't really see a reason to rename "Promotion and demotion" as it still summarises what the section is about (the nomination process is about promoting a new tool admin). I think splitting it is just going to be confusing and will drag it out since we are talking about the same bundle of functions.

I've moved the others around pretty much going by your suggestions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

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.

Force breaking reservations

I think the two hour limit guideline should be mentioned. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

@Sue Rangell: What two hour limit? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't know, actually. A little while back I had one of my reservations broken, and when I asked about it, I was told that there was a two hour limit, or that two hours was sort of a guideline number, or somesuch. Prior to that, I had thought the guideline was something more like 24 hours. Is there no consensus on this? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I've never heard of a two hour limit, I'd prefer to leave it to admin discretion anyway. Others? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Note on ban appeals

User:Callanecc/sandbox/Procedures#Ban_appeals states that users should appeal bans to the admins mailing list. Just to note it here, interface message 19 would have to be updated for this, since it directs users to appeal bans on the main mailing list. FunPika 22:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Unless anyone has an objection to it going to the admins' list (which is generally where it gets sent during moderation from what I've seen and would expect). There are a couple of site messages where I think it would be helpful to direct people to the admins' list. However in this case directing them to the admins' list so we have sudo CheckUser evidence could be helpful (that is, we collect the evidence then direct the email to admins' list). But I don't mind either way. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)