Forum:Admins on Meta

Forums: Index > Admins on Meta

This page or section is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. This thread was archived on 28 December 2018 by Gaz Lloyd.

Meta is currently the place for managing shared tools that applies to both wikis. These currently include:

• Global Abusefilters
• Global Title blacklist
• Global Spam Blacklist
• Shared Gadgets:
  • MediaWiki:Gadget-Less-core.js & MediaWiki:Gadget-LessMixins.less

In the future, I'd imagine it could also include where user renames occur. It could also include checkuser, but I feel that such a tool needs a standlone discussion to fully explore the requirements and implications of it.

At the moment, the admins are Cook Me Plox and Gaz Lloyd, as well as 2 de facto admins currently working as sysadmins. Currently, sysadmins are the primary maintainer the tools above. However, these tools affect all wikis and I believe there are times when a global response will be needed to vandalism and maintenance of global gadgets should not necessairly be solely the reponsibility of sysadmins when they are generally imported and used in different ways. There are also likely to be times when sysadmins are unavailable or otherwise engaged with server or code maintenance. If we can lighten their load to focus on more important things, I think we should take that opportunity and distributing tools to a more diverse set of users is rarely a bad thing.

Therefore, I propose that local admin rights shall be made available on Meta. The rights can be requested via the following process:

• All current admins on RSW and OSRSW shall be eligible for admin rights.
• Candidates shall undergo a RfA process lasting 1 week.
  • Candidates are already trusted members of the community, so I expect this to be a rubber stamp process in terms of community trust.
  • Candidates should be able to demonstrate a need for admins tools on Meta as they did for their local admin tools.

Admins tasks shall include:

• Maintaining the global tools alongside sysadmins.
  • I believe this will require admins to be given the user right for editing abusefilters.
• Performing maintenance tasks, e.g. page deletions, page protections, editing system messages, etc.
• Closing forum threads on Meta in line with consensus.
• Respond to requests for changes to the tools as necessary, via pages such as Meta:Abusefilter requests, Meta:Title blacklist requests, etc.

Admins shall be removed under the following circumstances:

• Via community consensus, e.g. a forum thread.
• If they are no longer an admin on either of the other wikis
  • This currently happens due to inactivity or consensus on both wikis as far as I know, which seem to be good reasons to remove rights here as well.

At this point however, there is no one responsible for giving our admin rights to prospective candidates. Therefore, I propose that this shall be the responsibility of directors. This would require directors to have bureaucrat rights, which are normally an extension to admin rights. I don't think admin tools are strictly necessary in this role, but I don't have any real feelings on it either way. To give something for people to support/oppose, I suggest limiting it to bureaucrat for now.

Discussion

Support - As nominator. cqm ^talk 11:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment - when you say candidates, am I right in thinking this refers to admins on rs3/osrs wikis who would then do the 1 week rfa for rights on this wiki? IsobelJ (talk) 19:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes. In this context, it means RfA candidates, i.e. those undergoing the RfA process. For the policy defined above, this does indeed mean they will be existing admins on at least one of the RS3 or OSRS wikis, or other wikis hosted by the company in the future. cqm ^talk 20:13, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Support - I don't have much to add, really. -I Am Me ^Talk- 21:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Support - Sounds good Haidro ^(talk) 23:24, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Support - bad_fetus^Talk 01:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Oppose - nah -- Shockstorm 01:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Could you explain the reasons for your opposition? cqm ^talk 01:04, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Support - --Iiii I I I 01:51, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Support - Scuzzy Meta

Support Jr Mime (talk) 14:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Support — Seems good. --laagone ^talk 15:08, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Support - 15:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Support - STAR the coolest bean (talk 2 me xoxo) 15:46, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Support - Betsan^Talk 09:47, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Support - // Salix // Talk-to Salix // 10:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Support - ^TylerJarret _(Talketh) 18:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Neutral - Kate ^msg 19:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Support - I would also propose having an admin requests page. IsobelJ (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Closed - There is consensus to implement the policy in the opening statement. Gaz (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)