Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Carrite: Difference between revisions

Before this gets under way, have you asked the stewards about creating a user group for you? There's no technical impediment to making a custom global user group that gives you only the user rights you need, while being limited to only this site (the English Wikipedia). Alternately, you could be added to the local researcher user group temporarily, I believe. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An ad hoc global group for a single Enwiki RfArb? Please, that's not appropriate. A local group can of course be created by developers, should there be consensus in the community for such a measure. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 19:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's inappropriate about an ad hoc global group, assuming there's community consensus? --MZMcBride (talk) 07:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know the answer to that question. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless that documentation is out of date, with the researcher user group one can only "perform a title search for deleted pages and view deleted history entries but not view the actual revisions of deleted pages", which would seem to fall short of what he wants to do. 28bytes (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's more discussion about the group at Wikipedia talk:FAQ/Research. I've added a link to it to WP:RESEARCHER. — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

28bytes: yeah, that's a bit bizarre. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of bridges my roles, but not in such a way that I think I need to switch log-ins. :) If it clarifies at all: [1]. See also VP subpage. Current WMF stance is that only people who go through adminship or a process of equal weight should be permitted to see deleted content. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but that wouldn't preclude Carrite from receiving only the ability to view deleted content if that were to somehow become the outcome of this discussion. That said, I think it's a bit late into the discussion for that to become the outcome. Ryan Vesey 16:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought, too, which is why I didn't mention it, but some of the people arguing otherwise have made sense to me. If people are granting the permission only for a limited time and limited purpose, I'm not sure that it counts at all as a process of equal weight. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could we just ask the WMF? I'm sure this issue is going to crop up again in the future. Hut 8.5 17:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. :) I'll see what I can find out. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out in the RfA itself, equal weight means community vetting. The reason, it appears to me, that the WMF requires those who want to view deleted material to go through RfA is because the issue of whether or not they should be able to review deleted material is discussed there (at least in theory, in practice, I don't know that I've ever thought of that specific case, and only think it would come up if there was a flaw that showed they shouldn't be able to). Analysis of someone's ability to close an AfD or correctly recognize the speedy deletion criteria (other than maybe G12) is completely irrelevant to someone's ability to view deleted material, and I'd be pretty disappointed if the WMF came out with a statement saying otherwise. Ryan Vesey 17:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that there are two considerations here:

1. Does the WMF care about issuing admin permissions to view deleted content only
2. Does the WMF care about a temporary adminship group for this purpose

Taking them in order: Does the WMF care about issuing admin permissions to view deleted content only? - The WMF has been clear that any permission which includes the ability to view deleted content must be identical in style and substance to the RFA process of the time. As long as that requirement is met, we're unlikely to object.

Does the WMF care about a temporary adminship group for this purpose? - Our position on this: while we don't object to the creation of a temporary adminship group, we would likely strongly suggest (if not obligate) that the wiki do it in a deliberate way. That is, let's not bypass community longstanding process for the creation of it. I would suggest that such a temporary adminship process would need to go through a Request for Comment phase that appropriately defines the obligations and restrictions, as well as the eligibility for such a process. This ad hoc hijacking of a traditional RFA feels to me to be putting a square peg in a round hole. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]