Meta:Babel/Archives/2009-02

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in February 2009, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

The following discussion is closed.
  • Consensus seems to side with those wishing Mr. Wales to undergo confirmation for Sysop and Steward rights. I would suggest listing him in the next confirmations and see what the community decides from there. Kylu 03:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo has admin and bureaucrat rights, but is never reconfirmed for some reason. He has made one deletion ever and is extremely inactive. He should not be above our rules for admins/bureaucrats. I think, as he's a steward, he already has the rights should he ever need to use them, so I think he should be removed as admin/bureaucrat. Majorly talk 03:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo is an honorary admin, so his right is permanent here unless he chooses to remove it himself. I know he has lost most of his rights on other wiki but I prefer if he maintains the admin right here, not to sure about crat, that can be removed...--Cometstyles 03:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
As a simple factual matter, it is not true that I have lost "most of his rights on other wiki". I still have rights everywhere, via the Founder flag.--Jimbo Wales 00:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Why? He doesn't use his admin or 'crat tools here. He has Steward access already. Adminship isn't a trophy. I don't see how there's even an argument here.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree. And honour is not something you give to yourself. Hillgentleman 06:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Might be an idea to notify Jimbo that this discussion is happening if that hasn't been done already. In fact, a good starting point might have been just asking him if he still wants the local rights given he has the global ones... WJBscribe (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, done over on enwiki. Majorly talk 17:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't see what would be gained by removal of the right. It isn't like there's any serious reason not to trust him if he hasn't used the tools in a long time (which is the standard argument for forcing reconfirmations). We don't have a limited number of admin slots. JoshuaZ 19:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
He has the rights already as a steward. Other admins are desysopped for inactivity on this project, including people who are more likely to need them. Majorly talk 19:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I would like to retain the rights. Desysopping for inactivity is a generally bad idea for people who are extremely active every single day working for free for this project. I am frequently asked to look into things, including looking at deleted revisions, and when I do, it is of course true that I could give myself the rights at that time, what's the point?--Jimbo Wales 00:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
You already automatically have sysop powers on every wiki with the global steward flag. You don't need to edit user rights to get those sysop powers, they're already there. Cbrown1023 talk 00:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
However the global sysop flag does not confer 'crat powers such as renaming or making admins. We prefer that admins made here are done by 'crats, not stewards. I don't see the point in removing this. ++Lar: t/c 06:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
What is the point of Wales having the bureaucrat flag on meta at all? Is he going to make somebody sysop or rename someone on meta, when he hardly even edits here? Hillgentleman 10:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. I could see him saying that he'd rather keep sysop powers for "emergencies" or things like that, but there really isn't an "emergency" bureaucrat action. (Anyway, if he someone needs bureaucrat actions done by him and not by local users, he can give the rights to himself.) Cbrown1023 talk 16:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
OK. However, a clarification, there is indeed a class of actions that are "emergency bureaucrat actions". They involve renames of userids. Per w:WP:BEANS that's about all I want to say. However, Himself doesn't tend to do a lot of emergency things (the bit of business at Wikiversity a few weeks ago notwithstanding). ++Lar: t/c 02:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I know what you're talking about. That's something that needs to be done in extreme haste, but it's not like stopping a vandal who is currently moving through a bunch of pages. Do we have all stewards with oversight enabled globally? No, and that's normally the same type of information. There's enough time to turn on your crat bit if you need it (anyway, spacebirdy says that it's possible to rename with steward's global group). Cbrown1023 talk 03:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This whole discussion seems a little pointy to me. He's a special case. Are you saying he's not? KillerChihuahua 00:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

He's not a special case. We're about to desysop Brion Vibber and Tim Starling, who technically both use the rights moreso than Jimbo. Please explain how this discussion is "pointy"? We desysop inactive people all the time. Jimbo has the rights as part of his steward tools. He therefore does not need separate ones, because according to Meta policy, he is inactive, whether he's busy behind the scenes or not. He can use his admin tools should he need to as part of his steward package. Majorly talk 00:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm about as confused as to why there's any desire to desysop Brion and Tim. What do we think this accomplishes? JoshuaZ 02:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Because they don't use their tools actively in the community here, that's why. It's part of our philosophy here: get it if you need it, lose it if you don't. Brion, Tim and Jimbo do not need extra user rights on Meta because they have them already. They are redundant. I really do wonder why you're so interested in this discussion though, considering you barely edit here Joshua. Drive-by comments from people who don't actively participate in a project are one of my pet hates if I'm honest. Majorly talk 02:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
That is a totally ridiculous thing to say on Meta. Do you think this is a self-contained universe. This is a Meta-project (Meta:About). An active editor anywhere is an active editor here, so be it me, so be it JoshuaZ. JohnnyMrNinja 08:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
It would be similar to me going over to say, Wiktionary, and saying discussions there a POINTY and the way they do things is wrong. Some parts of meta are specifically open to all, but this kind of thing is a local community discussion. What is POINTY is making driveby comments on a project you don't edit trying to order the regulars there about. Majorly talk 09:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Then perhaps you should hide Meta in a small box, and nobody can have it but you! The sense of ownership is offensive and silly. Having an opinion isn't telling you what to do, and because someone isn't in your club doesn't invalidate their opinion. I understand that Jimbo doesn't edit here as much you do, but this is a hub, not a project. It is not self-contained. It is a part of a bigger picture, as is Jimbo (you have heard of him, right?). This whole proposal is silly. JohnnyMrNinja 10:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
What is offensive are non-editors (yes, you!) showing up trying to disrupt discussions on a project (yes project) they don't edit. This is a project, it has its own community, and the myth that "every active user is active here" is simply that, a myth. I would appreciate it if you'd stop disrupting Meta, and go and do something else like disrupting enwiki, where the patience level is probably higher. Majorly talk 10:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
He's not a special case, and I too fail to see anything disruptive concerning this conversation.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the point of this, haven't we had an agreement that staff and the like don't have to go through confirmations, they will have the same rights after removal, so why bother and wasting everyones time with discussions and burocracy...? Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 03:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The "Staff" right is inherently a special case: You give it to folks like Brion and Tim and Jimbo so they they have the exact same rights as before but nobody brings up the issue of removal again: Let the elected stewards use the "Steward" right, let the Board and various staff use "Staff". As long as they keep bits that the policies say are otherwise confirmed regularly, someone is going to bring up the issue that those folks should be confirmed. If they take the Staff right, they keep them until they feel like removing them or they quit the project. Seems to me that if they'd voluntarily give up the community-confirmed bits, it'd make things easier for them... Kylu 04:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If Jimbo is allowed to retain his flag then everyone who founded Wikipedia is going to expect that right, obviously this is a major problem that requires lengthy discussion. Guest9999 03:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

He doesn't keep it because he's the Wikipedia founder. He keeps it because he is the chair emeritus of the board, the founder of the Wikimedia Foundation, and a "rockstar" to a large amount of Wikimedians. Cbrown1023 talk 03:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we should probably de-founder Jimbo as well. When was the last time he founded something? JohnnyMrNinja 08:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If you continue to disrupt this thread with irrelevant ramblings, you'll soon find yourself blocked. Majorly talk 10:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Come on Majorly. His irrelevant ramblings are irrelevant as this discussion. --Seha 10:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I fail to see what is irrelevant about this discussion. Jimbo should have lost these redundant rights long ago. Majorly talk 10:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
A man who gives us the posibility to transport the knowlage in every single part of the world, and that for free, should be over all rules we have. It´s irrelevant if he is a steward or not. We, the guests in his home, are not the one who should say wich rights he should have or not. What do we are without those pages? One million of contributors filled with knowlage without any posibility to give it to the others. At first as I saw this discussion I tought it´s a joke! --Seha 12:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Once again, I repeat, we are not taking any rights from him, merely removing redundant ones he already has in other forms. Jimbo does not own Wikipedia, Meta or any project. He may have co-founded it, but so what? It has always belonged to the community. Jimbo isn't the one who writes the content, the community is. He is not more important than anyone else. On Meta-wiki we decided admins who are inactive, as Jimbo is, should lose local rights. If you think that's a joke, I feel very sorry for you, as it is very serious. His rights have already been removed on Wikinews and Wikibooks. The most important thing I must emphasise yet again, is that he is not losing anything here. He will still be able to do exactly the same as he would before. This is just removing redundancy. Jimbo is not above the community or above the rules. To suggest that is a joke. Majorly talk 12:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, you seem to be confusing the sysop and bureaucrat bits with the respect of the community. One does not confer the other - in either direction. He will be as respected as previously regardless what we do here. Jimbo's objection to removing inactive admins notwithstanding, this community agrees that inactive admins are to be removed - it's not a personal insult or something.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 12:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
@ Majorly: I know that he is not the owner. I even know that he is not one of active contributors, but he is the carrier of the idea.
@ Mike: No I´m not confusing the differents. If that is the fact, and it is, that the rule say that an inactive sysop or ´crat have to loose his rights, why do we have this discussion? Then change the rights or the rules without discussion. I don´t know if I have some right to vote with some contributions I have here, but I think such a person he is, should be honored with more rights then we have. Regards --Seha 13:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid your argument boils down to "adminship is a trophy" — that's not going to fly here.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 13:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
No Mike. As I wrote: then change the rights, as for everyone, without such long discussion. But it seams to me, that there is a sight of community that, in this case, those rules are not the one wich should be used in his case. Other way we wuoldn´t have such an long discussion here.--Seha 13:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The reason we have a discussion is because it's polite to see what the community thinks before taking action. I could have removed Jimbo's rights at any time. Jimbo is normally exempt from confirmation, but with global rights activated, there is no purpose for him to be. Agree with Mike, you're basically saying that because he's Jimbo he somehow deserves the "honour". Simply not going to happen - this is a working wiki. Its admins are active, and as Jimbo is not active in the community, he will have his local rights removed. Majorly talk 13:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
because it's polite to see what the community thinks, nice words :). And as I see, the community is against those changing of rights. In other way there will be just a confirmation of the move you will make. There is no way to end this discussion if you allways say: there are the rules and the others say: he is Jimbo!. it´s a never ending story. if the rules are the only one fact, then change the rights. In case that the community is relevant, then don´t do it. It´s a border you must cross not me :). I´m just one little sysop on one small wiki :). I hope you understand me with my bad english. --Seha 13:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Where do you get the idea the community is against the changing of his rights? As far as I can see below, two non-arguments have been given, one by someone with fewer than 10 edits to Meta. Seven supports have been given by meta-wiki regulars. I think more people want his rights removed that kept - those who want him to keep his rights have yet to offer a single logical argument other than "he's Jimbo" or "no harm". Majorly talk 13:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
As he said above he can give the rights to himselve if he need them. Then don´t discuss but do: Don't worry, it won't take much effort to go to Special:Userrights and press the button. And please notify that I did not vote because of few edits I have. Other way, you want to say that all of us have the same rights and at the other side you say: someone with fewer than 10 edits. Then let us delete those 100000 users wich have just few edits at any wikimedia page. I found this discussion just so interesting and wanted to give my meaning. --Seha 13:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Poll

Let's just do a poll on this, and see what the Meta-wiki community think in voting terms. Please note that even if Jimbo does lose sysop and bureaucrat, he will not be losing the ability to use them, as long as he retains a steward. This is simply removing redundant rights he has in another form. To be closed in one week.

Support

  1. Majorly talk 10:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  2. Meta:Administrators#Poll after a year is clear on this. It is time to move on and let normal metabolism run its course. Hillgentleman 12:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  3. Na·gy 12:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  4. Policy is clear; my comments elsewhere are easily found & explain my position thoroughly.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 12:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  5. unneccessary redundancy. And, if he doesn't have local sysop+crat flags, nobody will ask for a confirmation anymore. ;) It's not that anyone wants to take his rights, it's only about flags that are not really doing anything because of global group memberships (founder/steward/staff etc.). --Thogo (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  6. As a member of the meta-wiki community, Jimbo is clearly inactive. It makes thus perfect sense to remove his local privileges as a member of the community. Getting some tools as a member of the board of the Foundation is a different matter that will be dealt with using global groups such as the staff group (or a dedicated board global group). guillom 13:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  7. Redundant, his global steward privileges allow him that already and he also fails the local activity policy and per his own words, "adminship is NO big deal" :D ..--Cometstyles 13:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  8. Abigor talk 14:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Adminship: Get it when you need it, lose it when you don't use it.
  9. I love that adminship is NO big deal, the words get used so often...--Herby talk thyme 14:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  10. Per Herby. --Erwin(85) 21:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  11. per policy George The Dragon 17:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  12. Conditional support if he is also de-foundered and desysopped on en.wikipedia -- Gurch 23:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  13. Jimbo is a steward already here on meta - meaning that he already has the abilities of an Administrator (Sysop), so in despite of that he'll not loose the tools since stewards have them already. Dark Obsidian@en.wikiversity 19:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  14. I don't believe that Staff members should have local rights; it creates confusion, and typically they don't have those permissions so they can do the grunt work that the rest of us do, but for a much more specialized purpose (for example, you don't go to Brion for a rename, or Jimbo for an IP block). EVula // talk // // 22:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. No harm. NonvocalScream 12:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    There's no basis in policy for this argument.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 12:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    I'll give you that, but I don't think we are discussing the normal user. Sometimes, we are required to look beyond policy. Generally, granting exceptions when required. I posit that an exception in this case has no net loss, and does have the net benefit of timesinking, as this discussion has already. Other meta tasks require attention, and since he has the privs, I don't see the harm in the redundant rights. Thank you for your consideration on this. NonvocalScream 20:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    But then again, please decide either way. If he has privs via the staff group, then removing the local privs will not make it any harder on him. I see both sides, and now I sit on the fence. However, both of my statements still stand. NonvocalScream 20:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    You're correct Jimbo is not a normal user in the sense that he is a steward & board member. As such, he has access to global tools beyond the ones we are discussing here - that is not disputed. However he is a normal user in exactly the sense you say he is not: he is bound by community policies in this. The creation of the relevant global groups was precisely intended to allow such removals without removing the rights these people need to do their jobs. Following policy is good - removing his local tools in accordance with policy is good, as is giving him access to other tools which are intended for people in his position. Removing these tools complies with policy - it is those who invent arguments which contradict Meta's policy who are creating a timesink.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
    That is correct as well. I don't object to the removal, since the global group is redundent. NonvocalScream 18:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  2. If removal of sysop and bureaucrat bits is not going to change anything, why to bother? No policy is absolute. And this is a rare case (see M:IAR), when it should be ignored. Ruslik 13:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    Don't worry, it won't take much effort to go to Special:Userrights and press the button, I assure you. And please explain how this is a rare case and why we should ignore the rules. Thank you. Majorly talk 13:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    Why rare? I has always thought that we have only one Founder. Ruslik 13:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    I'm not understanding the argument - you're opposing Jimbo losing redundant user rights he never uses on Meta-wiki, that he has as a steward. Why his "founder" status has anything to do with that, I don't know. What is your point? Majorly talk 13:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    Ruslik: "Why bother?" The answer is simple: We want to keep things simple and straightforward on meta: "Get it if you need to use it; lose it if you don't need it." However, every time the reconfirmation of Wales or Starling or Brion comes up, there are people who comes up and say "he is a dev", "she is an exception" or "I work tirelessly for wikimedia so I should keep my flags" and we waste a lot of effort arguing back and forth. It is simply better to get it done right once and for all.Hillgentleman 09:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
    Another arguement is simple book-keeping: we give trustees and staff the staff-flag, so that would use it when they are on their job, and lose it when they quit. It is much simpler to remove one right than several. 220.142.3.157 07:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Eh...

  1. Introducing this option for Metapedians who are very "eh" about all this. Daniel (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    There's no basis in policy for this argument.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 14:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    :) Daniel (talk) 07:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  2. -- Maximillion Pegasus 01:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  3. Per Mike.lifeguard's reply to Daniel at entryt #1 of this choice. ++Lar: t/c 18:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Closure of the poll[edit]

The poll above (about Jimbo) was closed incorrectly. There should be reconfirmation of his sysop and bureaucrat status, not sysop and steward. The latter was not discussed, and this is not an appropriate forum to discuss stewards. Ruslik 17:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus was to remove bureaucrat and admin. Kylu closed it incorrectly, and misinterpreted the discussion as a poll to put Jimbo on confirmation. It wasn't that at all - the poll was to remove his local rights, sysop and bureaucrat. I would do it myself, but as I initiated the discussion, a less involved person should do it. Majorly talk 18:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The correct place to discuss his steward access is Stewards/confirm (starting February 1st). Kylu suggested listing him there, which was already done in any case; that is, she suggested discussing his steward access where it is appropriate to do so. Any consensus achieved in this discussion is irrelevant, so I don't think your objection is applicable. —Pathoschild 19:08:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
It is interesting that here Jimbo is listed as an appointed steward (and only one), not elected. I do not know how he can be reconfirmed.:) Ruslik 19:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
You're missing the fact that that was the whole point of this poll here. :) (to see whether or not he should be reconfirmed instead of appointed) Cbrown1023 talk 20:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC) Fell into the mistake of reading Kylu's summary. Cbrown1023 talk 21:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Wait, what? This was about local rights (+sysop and +bureaucrat). There was no consensus established regarding his stewardship and reconfirmations of it at all. Until the global community (or I suppose the Board) decides that Jimmy is "un-appointed" as a steward and must be re-confirmed like the other stewards, he keeps the +steward bit. --MZMcBride 20:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Appointed by whom? He successfully went through the confirmation process every year since his appointment. I see no suggestion of official immunity to community discussion, besides the assumptions of regular editors like yourselves; I presume Jimbo was added by a developed on his own request back in the pre-logged days. He was listed by an anonymous user, charted as elected in 2006, and later recharted as 'appointed in 2006'. —Pathoschild 21:17:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This discussion was nothing to do with steward rights. This was to do with his local rights (sysop and bureaucrat) which are rightfully discussed on this page. The correct place to discuss steward rights is where Pathoschild says, but that's a completely separate discussion. Consensus above, as far as I can see, are to remove his local rights; we don't need any further permission from here. I don't want to remove them myself for the reasons said above. Majorly talk 21:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

As Majorly mentioned, its about his sysops and Bureaucrat rights on meta and it has nothing to do with his steward access since only the devs are excluded from the stewards confirmations and Jimbo isn't a developer. Well the consensus here is to remove jimbo's right on Meta as an admin and crat and NOT his steward right (that will be discussed during the steward confirmations. I'm not sure if we just remove his right or should we place him in the next confirmations in April, though I would prefer if he was in the next confirmations, just to be fair...--Cometstyles 22:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
There are no more confirmations, and besides, what's the point of yet another poll on it? Consensus to remove now is clear. Majorly talk 22:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The summary has been struck. I didn't realize I stated "steward" there, sorry. Closure is for the time limit only. I have no opinion on the outcome, if a different uninvolved bureaucrat were to make a determination now, that would be ideal. Thanks. Kylu 03:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Question. So the keep argument boils down to "Jimbo's not a normal user, he's special". So is this a confirmation that indeed Jimbo will hold special status (and no more "he's just another wikimedian, like everyone")? es:Drini 03:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

All we're doing is removing redundant flags. He'll still hold the same "special" values; that's a discussion for another day. Majorly talk 03:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
To meta, he is as special as a steward and a trustee with a staff flag. Hillgentleman 18:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately according to Special:ListGroupRights Wikimedia doesn't have a staff flag, if one was created it'll be easier to identify who is a staff for the foundation and who isn't - plus Jimbo's "stewardship" would be replaced with the staff Group right which would include all abilities. This has happened over on Wikia via there wikicities:Special:ListGroupRights but will it happen over here on the Foundation projects? Dark Obsidian 19:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but "ListGroupRights" only contains local rights. "Staff" is a global right (which doesn't have a "list rights" equivalent), see Special:GlobalUsers/Staff. Cbrown1023 talk 20:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
It's a global group, not a local one.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
If my flags are changed, I will simply change them back when I feel like it. This whole situation is POINT-y in the extreme. Please go do something useful now.--Jimbo Wales 02:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
My goodness, you're being so ridiculous. I've half a mind to revert you, but then you'd probably take my flags from me in revenge. This wiki isn't your toy, Jimbo. You can see deleted revisions with your steward rights. Now, kindly revert yourself, and stop being disruptive. The community has clearly spoken against you. Majorly talk 03:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Please point me to anything I have done that involved treating this wiki or any other as a toy. What you are doing is insulting and rude, very contrary to the core mission that we have set for ourself, petty and controlling, and you should be ashamed.--Jimbo Wales 03:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Um, you just blatantly misused your steward rights to give yourself back two rights that the community clearly expressed you had no need for. You just called all the users in this good faith discussion disruptive (POINT-y is Disruption to make a point), and you clearly haven't read the parts that clearly explain that you have admins rights as part of your steward rights. It's rather embarrassing that you didn't know this. My respect for you has dropped significantly by this immature act. Majorly talk 03:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry you feel the need to be this way. I hope you can find a more peaceful place in the future.--Jimbo Wales 03:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
p.s. I switched it back. It's simply too lame to argue with you about, and you clearly aren't in a place to even begin to listen to me.--Jimbo Wales 03:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Lets just ignore that this happened. Prodego talk 03:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's try to be a bit calmer, shall we? Majorly, I don't think it's fair to say that the community has "spoken against [Jimbo]" - in fact, several of those who commented expressed respect for him. However, the community did decide that the tools should be removed, and I'm glad to see that Jimbo has reverted his rights change to reflect the community consensus (though I do wonder why he would entertain other possibilities). In short, you're both wrong. The current situation seems satisfactory, perhaps relaxing for a time before engaging on this issue would be beneficial for you both?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 04:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Reading this after the fact, can I point out as an observer that the tenor (and content!) of this "discussion" and poll is the height of ridiculous? Just thought I'd throw that out there. The fit of pique in taking his flags, the seeming belief that meta is a project divorced from others and Foundation activities, and the spite with which some approached the question don't reflect well on any Wikimedians. Avruch 22:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You are right that Meta is not independent. However, you are far too careless in your "ridiculous" characterisation of this discussion. Do you think just anyone who is not familiar with the workings of Meta is capable enough to do the sysop chores on Meta? Shouldn't she at least have an idea of how Meta categorise its contents, how pages are archived, and how the blacklists and the interwiki map are maintained? Hillgentleman 02:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Presumably you noticed that the practical effect of this decision is approximately nil? All that resulted was some acrimony and the opportunity of a few people to lord it over Jimmy. It's a phenomenon the English Wikipedia is familiar with (being anti-Jimmy has a certain social cachet there), but I didn't realise it was meta practice to take pointless and divisive action just because its possible to do so. Avruch 18:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Avruch Your points are well understood, not the least from Wales's own perception of "pointy"-ness when in fact the opposite is true - This is a procedural matter and we are simply treating everyone equally. Every inactive meta-sysop has willingly given up their flag, and Wales is the odd-man-out. It would be great if you could hang around Meta a bit more to appreciate our culture and do read the comments of others and rush not into judgement. Hillgentleman 06:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't comment that often, but I follow enough to know what the culture of meta is like. Criticism != lack of knowledge. Would you say that anyone who doesn't meet the requirements for a request to become an administrator on Meta should lose their rights? That seems fair, and if you agree then there are some administrators and bureaucrats on this project who ought to be desysopped for not having admin flags on content projects. Avruch 14:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Can I disable interlinker.js?[edit]

Special:Logs and Special:RecentChanges seem to be messy. Can anyone make a gadget to remove messy logs?--Kwj2772 03:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "messy" - I don't see anything wrong there.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 04:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Do you think these examples are not messy?
  • (사용자 권한 기록); 03:05 . . Bastique (토론 | 기여) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam%20Korn의 권한을 체크유저, 오버사이트, 관리자에서 오버사이트, 관리자으로 변경 ‎ (Presently a checkuser ombudsemen; no longer needs the local flag.)
--Kwj2772 08:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Sure, but you shouldn't be seeing the links - only the link text:
# 09:22, 23 January 2009 Dungodung (Talk | contribs | block) locked and hid global account "User:Crotalus horridus is a serial killer.@global" ‎ (unacceptable username)
If that's not the case, then the script may be broken. Do you have javascript enabled, and do you get any errors in your js console or Firebug?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I use Internet Explorer 7.--Kwj2772 07:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Stealth canvassing for a steward candidate.[edit]

Hi, I created a discussion here about a possible stealth canvassing in the election of a steward candidate. I hope those involved in the review of the results keep one eye on that.--Pediboi 22:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Updated with another one.--Pediboi 20:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)