Wikipedia talk:Request an account/Administrators

message: :::::Just as a point, the banning of Kurt was from an IRC channel, and IRC is not Wikipedia. However, while I have said I disagree with Kurt getting access, yes, if the other tool admins wish to give him access, then I will go along with that. Prodego makes a good point. :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 19:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I refuse to sanction your illegitimate process that shows total contempt for the Wikipedia community in that manner.  Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 19:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I was always under the impression that it was open to the community. It's just that as far as I am aware, the community has not taken much of an interest until now, when allegations have been brought up. :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 19:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Way to equivocate.  Yes or no question: Are you opposed, in principle, to the community asserting total and unhindered control over this process?  Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I would love to see what the consensus actually is - if more eyes were on this discussion, I'd be inclined to take a straw poll. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not opposed to it (in principle), as I thought that that was always the case. However, I have never seen the community as a whole take interest in the ACC process, except when we forced a poll on the community for the accountcreator right, which the community agreed to. Yes in principle, but I feel that we have got along by ourselves (so to speak) for a while, so I don't feel that the community will have much interest in it now either. (I could be wrong though.) :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 21:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

text: If the tool was passed over to the community then what about all the other tools that require approval before it's use. There are dozens of new page patroller and anti-vandal tools that require a tool admin to initiate an account, are you proposing that all these applications also be transferred over to the community? —— RyanLupin • (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on, Ryan, you're not a newbie around here. That sounds a lot like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Why should there be different procedures? Bots, admins, 'crats all require community consensus...XfDs and DRVs are community-consensus based...rollback privilege is granted by admins, who are vetted by the community...it seems logical that everything be done through the same mechanism, which has at its root the community. Yes, there might be differences in some cases but even the degree to which something ought to be an exception ought to be determined by community consensus. Which other tools are (or have their access bit) administered in this way?  Frank    talk  21:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If ACC is granted like rollback, then so should access to the toolserver. Vetted by the community. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

text: No, at the risk of sounding over-dramatic, the proposal is to retake control of Wikipedia through its usual means of community consensus, rather than allowing outside-controlled processes and tools to directly access and control important Wikipedia tasks. As to how, the answer is the same way the community displays and implements consensus in any other situation. Speaking for myself, I reject the notion that this has anything to do with User:SQL, a valued contributor, or User:Kmweber, another valued contributor. This discussion is about process and procedure.  Frank    talk  01:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, you do realize that you are trying to take control of something outside Wikipedia? (do I need to use  too?) And statements of vague ideals make for terrible proposals. Mr.Z-man 20:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you not been paying attention?  I've already blasted the ridiculous "This is not really part of Wikipedia" argument into oblivion.  It's irrelevant, meaningless, and worthless.  Please pay attention in the future.  Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can't stay civil, I'm not even going to waste my time. Mr.Z-man 20:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Way to attempt to evade responsibility for your gross failure to pay attention to what's going on.  Next time, please make an actual argument rather than baseless accusations that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.  Thanks!  Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Uh huh. <nods head> I can agree with Kurt's ban from IRC, as long as there's a legitimate reason. —§unday b 01:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: edit point

message: Let me explain something to everyone, since I see my name being tossed around quite a bit. My role, in this project, is that of a Developer, and, a System administrator. I generally hold the final say, on what code is accepted to be run, for this software package, and, maintain the subsystems related to it, that run on the stable toolserver. I do not approve users any longer (As soon as we got a few reliable administrators, I stepped back, and let them run the show). I do not choose the tool admins any more (and, haven't in many months). I don't really even work the requests any more, I just maintain the codebase, and, make sure the required systems are running (the welcomebot, the UDP collector, the software itself, et cetera). Additionally, I hold operator access to the IRC channel, and, administrate the mailing list.
I was asked my opinion on overturning Kmweber's declined access, and, at the time, my opinion was that I did not see the problem with granting him access. Recently, this user has seen it fit, to harass various other tool users, admins, and, level threats at myself, and, I am told, others. This is the precise reason I have removed his access to the IRC channel (Which, serves primarily as a notification service, for new requests, and, a place for the development team to co-ordinate), to prevent further disruption and trolling. This has done a great deal to change my opinion. 
I am severely disappointed, at the way I have seen our admins, and, users described above. I would remind people here, that the 'job' requires a good deal of good faith a lot of the time, includes access to nonpublic data (IP addresses, underlying blocks, e-mail addresses occasionally passwords by mistake), requires a calm, patient demeanor.
Additionally, for reference, I am not the sole system administrator, there is also Cobi, and, OverlordQ, both of whom have equally little to do with day-to-day operation. Also, there are approximately ten developers, give or take. Outside of the threats, and whatnot, this does not involve me, nor any of the other maintainers or developers. This is a question of access, and day-to-day operation. 
To re-iterate, I don't grant access, or promote / demote people outside of extreme circumstances (read: emergencies), and, I generally do not participate in those processes.
It may be of interest, that we are in the process of working the tool into a MediaWiki extension, so that all this can be brought on-wiki shortly. Progress to this end is somewhat stalled at the moment, I assume that this is mostly due to school being back in. If anyone is interested in helping out, by all means, drop me a line, or, even better a patch. We would all greatly appreciate the help. SQLQuery me! 06:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As a quick point: I've somewhat stopped because I'm not certain if the database structure that has been proposed is suitable/accepted/implemented. I don't feel I can be of much more help on the extension's development until the database is firmly resolved. School is only one factor as far as I am concerned. :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 07:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty OK with the present schema, but, it's not really been implemented yet on the test site. I don't see it changing greatly in the near future. SQLQuery me! 07:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Last time I checked the schema it was OK, but at the moment I can't get on to the test wiki (forgotten password, saved in firefox though, but no access to it at the moment), so I can't check again. Any indications as to when it will be implemented? Stwalkerster [ sock:talk ] 07:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, get with me tomorrow, I'll reset your password, and, we can work on getting the DB implemented, I'm going to get some shuteye shortly. SQLQuery me! 08:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I still have access to the test wiki, as the password is saved in firefox at home. However, I'm not at home at the moment. Stwalkerster [ sock:talk ] 09:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

text: SQL, is it fair to say that the current setup will definitely be eclipsed by the new account creation extension in the near future?  If so, that might make this whole discussion moot.  If not, then we may have make this process more transparent in some ways to deflect any continued criticism.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on your definition of 'the near future'. I would love to see this moved to a MW extension, and, we're working on it. However, it is a surprisingly complex project, and, I'd say it's about 15% there right now. We need to finish the codebase, do a large amount of testing, and then submit it for code review (and, likely hold some sort of discussion regarding installing it). Those things could possibly take a short time, or more likely, could take several months. In the meanwhile, if you need a software feature, or, something else tweaked and/or worked on, you are always welcome to file a bug report or feature request, and we'll do our best to make the requested change. Regarding administrative actions, or, the general administrative 'structure', I'd think a rational discussion on-wiki or on the mailing list would suffice. (Not entirely sure, however, as that is an aspect that I generally do not participate in, as noted above) SQLQuery me! 05:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

text: It doesn't need to be made "more transparent."  It needs to be turned over to the community altogether, and immediately.  We don't need to wait for this MW extension to be finished; in the meantime, the current "tool admins" need to subordinate themselves to the will of the Wikipedia community.  I'm quite aware of the technical, physical split between WP and the account creation tool.  Doesn't mean the people who run it can't just agree to do whatever the community tells them to do and stop making decisions themselves.  Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've said, the team will probabally be happy to do this. However, by continually saying the same thing over and over I feel we are getting no further in the discussion. Secondly, as I have also previously said, until now, the community has taken little if any interest in the goings-on at ACC, and hence I see not why a change is needed if only to add more policy and procedure and process to it, which is unneeded. If the community wants something changed, then it can, and as far as I can tell, always has been able to get that change made. :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 17:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  My involvement with this project 

message: The link http://stable.toolserver.org/acc/users.php on the Wikipedia:Request an account/Administrators project page is broken. Debresser (talk) 12:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken link