Wikipedia talk:Administrators: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Article Images

Line 191:

#::::Yes, looking at my block logs, I do see some examples of that, for example, I blocked {{noping|Wikipedians have a below average penjs size}} and {{noping|If you community ban me i will cruise more}} without TPA despite them not having edited, without any warning or [[WP:BRI|notifying]] them, and without even giving a reason in the block log. Unfortunately, it was some time ago, and I since I didn't write a reason in the block log, I don't remember anymore why I blocked them. And I'm afraid there are many other comparable examples. This doesn't apply to all my blocks, at least. I have though given warnings and/or block notices for some users, especially for the users who could plausibly both be human and not already have accumulated 400+ warnings and 100+ block notices. I don't think I've yet gotten any complaints about specific actions, except for one about having deleted a page as non-notable instead of as vandalism (or something like that), and some complaints about having forgotten to revoke TPA when blocking an LTA. I certainly may be out of touch, and tend to stay away from what I feel most out of touch with. As for RFAs, I certainly see a difference between how RFAs were back then, compared to now. Rather than me running a reRFA by recent standards, I think a better solution would be adjusting new RFAs so they match the older standards better. I get the impression that the RFA process now screens out most non-extroverts before they even get to the stage of applying, and that might not neccessarily be ideal. [[User:Cyp|Κσυπ ''Cyp'']] [[User talk:Cyp| ]] 11:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

#:::::With regards to those two editors: though I cannot discern what you were thinking at the time with any more certainty than ''you'' can, I would hazard a guess that it had something to do with their usernames... [[User:Kurtis|Kurtis]] [[User talk:Kurtis|(talk)]] 12:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

#:::::Your bad blocking practices are a consistent and unwavering pattern, not "two users a long time ago". The fact that you can breach norms and standard practices and engage in abusive practices just because no one screening your logs, and then blame your incompetence on the fact that no one was supervising you, is a sign that you should not be an admin. No one should have to supervise an admin on the assumption that they don't know what they're doing. We simply shouldn't have to be worried about this. That's ''why'' we have RfA, and that's why admins without RfAs should subject themselves to the community for vetting. Regarding your position on RfA, there's another problem: what you describe as "older standards" really means "no standards", and "recent standards" is actually just "standards", standards that have been fairly stable for nearly 15 years. If you think it's realistic to call for the community to drop their longstanding standards for adminship, and run a NOBIGDEAL RfA on your own merits, then ''go for it''. Put that theory to the test. I will argue that your logs are evidence that there's a reason we should have standards, but it is the community that can weigh our opposing arguments. The community governs this project, not your opinion that you deserve to be an admin because there should be no standards for adminship. It's a pretty bad argument, IMO, especially coupled with actual incompetence. [[User:Swarm|'''~Swarm~''']] [[User talk:Swarm|{sting}]] 03:58, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

#:::: {{edit conflict}} {{ping|Swarm}} I stand corrected. To tell you the honest truth, I based my comment more on the fact that I haven't seen any drama arising from his resumed adminship. Despite my sporadic activity, I do keep myself updated on Wikipedia's latest developments, though it's possible I missed something. If what you say is true – chiefly, his heavy-handed approach to blocking – then there is a serious question as to whether Cyp is currently fit to remain an administrator. I've seen problems with what you describe as "relic administrators" before, and I think that they should have their tools revoked if they're repeatedly misusing them. On the other hand, there are plenty of other relic administrators who continue to display the competence necessary to at least get themselves up to speed before taking action. I believe it is best handled on a case-by-case basis; administrators who are demonstrably out of touch should lose their sysop tools, whereas administrators who have not caused any issues thus far should be allowed to keep them. As far as potential future problems are concerned, we can cross those bridges when we get to them. [[User:Kurtis|Kurtis]] [[User talk:Kurtis|(talk)]] 12:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

#::::: May I please add that it is very important that administrators who are not using the tools correctly get proper feedback about it in a timely fashion, otherwise they end up in a situation which we recently have seen with Enigmaman.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 14:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)