UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard/Archives/Blockers

A UESPWiki – Sua fonte de The Elder Scrolls desde 1995
Semi Protection
This is an archive of past UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page, except for maintenance such as updating links.

Blockers

In regards to this discussion and the update to it, I'm not sure if any agreement was ever established on what admission requirements would be for the new group. In the absence of a formal policy, I'm just going to ask for that right for myself and let others fend for themselves. :) That brings back up the question of how to do it, keeping in mind that whatever is done for me will probably set a precedent:

  1. Do I just ask and if one (or maybe all) admins agree, I get the rights?
  2. Do we want a formal Request for Block Permissions discussion, the same as we would for Patroller or Administrator?
  3. Do we want to hammer out a formal requirements list?
  4. Do we want to have a requirements list and a vote (like Patrollers are now).
  5. Alternatively, if a requirements list is wanted, but we don't want to wait, we can put the cart before the horse and grant permissions by one of the first two methods, then put a requirements list in place at a later date.

Also, semi off-topic, when someone has a chance, I think we can remove Krusty from the Blockers group, as he already has those rights as an Administrator anyway. Robin Hoodtalk 03:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I've created a stub of a page at UESPWiki:Blockuser (with a redirect at UESPWiki:Blockers) and added pertinent info to UESPWiki:Blocking Policy, UESPWiki:Administrators, and UESPWiki:User Group Rights. I've intentionally tried to avoid describing the process, since we haven't decided.
My opinions on the matter are that we don't need a formal requirements list or a vote. I do think, however, that it should be an agreement between at least two admins that an editor is suitable for blockuser rights. It's definitely something we should decide before assigning the rights, though. --GKtalk2me 19:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with GK. I recall that the entire reason to get the role assignable by admins was to allow the rights to be given quickly and easily when required. If an admin knows that he or she will be away for some time and that no other admin is likely to be around, it should be allowable to simply give the right to some user who is on IRC or obviously active on wiki. The idea is to ensure that there's always somebody around who can block as required. When the admin returns - or another becomes active, the rights could be removed if there's no need for them any more, or they could be left in place - I don't think it matters too much.
We definitely don't want a procedural rigmarole over this because it would eliminate the point of the group. rpeh •TCE 14:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
In light of the current bout of vandalism, with no admin currently available, I would like to formally request to be made part of this group on a long-term basis. Following GK's suggestion in the absence of any other formal procedure, can I get an admin to agree, and a seconder to implement, please? Robin Hoodtalk 23:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Ditto. Luckily, it seems as if Nephele was by her computer when I sent out a "please help!" email, but a better suggestion would be to use the facility we now have. rpeh •TCE 23:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm fine with giving Robin Hood blocker permissions. I'm not entirely sure what the proposed process is here, and I'm also not completely sure whether GK was specifically supporting Robin Hood or just generally supporting moving forward. So I haven't actually made any permission changes. However, any admin should be able to grant blocker permissions at this point, assuming someone else wants to second the proposal.
That said, though, I'm a bit concerned about unrealistic expectations here. Unless dozens of people are given blocker rights (which I'm not inclined to think is appropriate), I don't it's realistic to expect every vandal to be blocked within minutes. Even if an admin is active, the admin is likely to be busy with his/her own wiki project and might not check recent changes more than a couple times an hour. And to expect an admin to delegate someone blocker permissions every time he/she steps away from the computer for an hour seems pretty unrealistic -- especially given that breaks are as likely to be unplanned as planned. So if the issue here is that people think it's unacceptable for it to sometimes take an hour before a vandal is blocked, I don't that issue is about to be solved; I'm not even sure it can really be solved.
Also, FWIW, I just happened to check recent changes in the ten spare minutes I had between gardening and taking the apples I'd harvested to the homeless shelter. There's no way I could have or would have blocked the user any sooner or later than I did, because that was the only time I spent near my computer all afternoon. My timing was unrelated to Robin Hood's post or to any emails -- I still haven't even checked my email. I just don't want people to start thinking that they need to take unnecessary measures every time there's an admin action, because, at least in this case, those measures made no difference. --NepheleTalk 01:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Evidently you haven't had time to read discussions referred to at the start of this discussion either. I'll relink the important one so you can refresh your memory.
The fact that in this case merely 15 minutes went by before a user with block rights came to the keyboard is immaterial. There have been previous occasions on which it has been more. There have been occasions where, even if the suggested changes had been in operation, the delay would still have been a long time. None of this alters the fact that if RobinHood's request had been acted upon earlier, the site would have experienced less vandalism this evening.
This discussion has already taken place and unless somebody has useful objections, there's no reason why the actions previously agreed upon by the community can't be enacted. rpeh •TCE 02:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Rpeh, I'd appreciate it if you would stop making blatantly incorrect assumptions about what I have or have not read.
As for the point at hand, I have already acted upon the community's agreed proposals -- namely I made it possible for admins to add/remove people from the blockers group (an action which in and of itself proves my familiarity with the original discussion). Beyond that, I only see agreement with GK's suggestion that two admins should agree that an editor is suitable for blocker rights. I don't see any other statements by admins (even GK) saying that they support Robin Hood being a blocker, making my statement the first of two required admin votes. I'm not going to unilaterally take an action when the community has said that two admins must agree. --NepheleTalk 04:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, Nephele, I'd appreciate it if you could act as if you had read those discussions. Yes I'm glad you acted on my suggestion that the new group should be assignable by Admins. Thank you for that. After that, you appear to have ignored the main thrust of the debate, namely that admins should be able to assign the new group as and when it is required. That was the entire point of giving admins the ability to assign the new group. If you "don't see any other statements by admins", please re-read the discussion to which I linked you, and take greater care over comprehension next time. rpeh •TCE 05:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

() (edit conflict) My take on GK's response was a general support on moving forward, not any kind of endorsement of me. As for the unrealistic expectations, I think the goal here is just to have a higher likelihood of someone being around to stop it when vandalism occurs. It may not be flawless, but it'll certainly improve the vandalism situation. Not that the delay was inordinate by any means, but there were several Patrollers around today who could have stopped the vandalism even sooner had they had Blocker rights. Even if it were only the senior-most Patrollers, there were still two of us (that I noticed) who were active at the time. I agree that blocker permissions being given on-the-fly should not be the norm, but it's certainly good to have the ability should the admins need it. (Atreus comes to mind, for example, as someone who might not need/want long-term Blocker permissions, but whom we would all trust to have them for the short term, if needed.)

In regards to the issue of whether to e-mail an admin or whatever, perhaps it would be a good idea for Admins and long-term Blockers to indicate on the Admin, Blockers, or their user page whether or not users should contact them by other means if vandalism is going on. Robin Hoodtalk 05:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

There were several Patrollers active at the time. Me, S'drassa, RobinHood, and rpeh. I could see why the senior Patrollers would get the rights because there is always a Patroller on and they could handle the tools a little better than per se me. IRC and Email are always good ways to contact a User, but the preference should be listed as a notice. For example; I never check my Email but am always online in IRC.--Corevette789 05:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe in the concept of "senior patroller". I certainly don't consider myself "senior" to any other patroller and I very much doubt RH does either.... except in the purely literal sense of age, and I doubt either of us would rather talk about that!
I still believe the role should be assigned when needed, which is why I asked that it be assignable by admins; something that Nephele, so graciously, granted. At the moment, there seems to be a lack of admins caused by unexpected factors such as pregnancy... although WHY GK couldn't have waited until a more convenient time, I don't know!
The "two admin" suggestion was only a suggestion and never part of any policy. Right now, we probably need at least one other person with block permissions. I don't care who gets given these permissions, but I think we need more coverage.
Since Nephele doesn't trust me (which is fine, because I don't trust her either), give the role to RH and somebody else from the Euro area. All I want is a decent chance of protecting the site around the clock. I don't know why some people think anything else. rpeh •TCE 05:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
"Senior" was my doing, and I only meant it in the sense of those who have the most experience with the site, not as any form of ranking. Robin Hoodtalk 07:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
To get back to what this discussion should be about, I also agree with RH being given block rights, so in light of Neph's endorsement, I've given him the rights. --GKtalk2me 18:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I noticed right away looking at my Watchlist. Thank you! I'll test-block Joram just to find out how it all works, so don't be surprised if you see blocks of—and if I need it, possibly a single "vandalism" edit from—that account. Oh and you'll make a great Mom, GK. :Þ Robin Hoodtalk 19:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Aw, thanks RH! --GKtalk2me 01:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)