Meta:Requests for adminship/KTC

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.

Temporary adminship(s) re-instated by Lar, per discussion. --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

KTC

Temporary adminship were granted to members of the 2008 board election committee for the purpose of election related edits. This were removed by User:Majorly as "election over, no longer needed" about 24 hours ago. While election is over, it is not correct that it's already no longer needed. I for one (and generally agreed among the committee) has declared that more specific voting record will be provided, such as a complete anonymoused list of votes placed so that the result can be independently verified. I cannot provide such information when I can no longer edit the pages involved.... So, unless everyone suddenly decided they don't want those information, I request temporary adminship for another week or so, so that these information can be provided. KTC 23:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

There's seven of you on the committee, four with adminship. I'm sure that the four who have adminship still can add this information if needed. Majorly ^talk 23:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree with majorly here. Thank you for your services, but, in light of the four other admins, I think that they will no longer be required for the purposes of election housekeeping. --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Struck. Since the temporary adminship was meant to extend further than this, I think it makes sense to allow the user to retain their bit. I  Support the reinstating of adminship in this instance. --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

We granted all 7 of the committee temporary adminship. The election is not yet over, not all the results have been posted. I see no reason for this to have been removed and every reason to turn it back on until the committee as a whole says they are done, within reason (not till January 2010, mind you, but a few more weeks is no big deal)... I'm not sure I agree that it should have been uninaterally removed. At the time of the request it was noted that it might go for a while after the results were announced. ++Lar: t/c 03:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

PS, the adminship was granted until Sept 16 2008 per Steward_requests/Permissions/Approved_temporary#User:Daniel_.40_Meta ++Lar: t/c 04:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Support KTC gaining full adminship as trustworthy. Barring that, he should keep the adminship until September 16. There's really no reason to take adminship off trustworthy people because of arbitrary time limits, especially if they're using it. —giggy 04:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, I would have preferred to retain it until the committee's work was done. I fully intended to resign it once we were done, and have said so clearly. Philippe 04:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

@Giggy: I think it probably would be best to run a separate RfA for KTC if KTC is interested in a permanent adminship... let's just sort out restoration of the temporaries in this section. I plan to, barring some major issue raised, and assuming general approval, restore within 12 hours of now. ++Lar: t/c 04:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

re. a separate RfA: I'm fine with that, I'll be supporting.

re. resysopping in 12 hours: Good.

—giggy 04:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

There was no need whatsoever to extend to September. Where are the members with adminship? They should be doing the stuff that needs adminship, not the non-admins. It makes no sense. I was told by Daniel to remove the rights, so I did. I see little point in restoring, when there are plenty of people with the rights to do the work. Majorly ^talk 06:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

But their adminship was given on term until September. Those were the terms under which the adminship was presented. It is not fair and is a breach of that decision to revoke the adminship before that time. --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep. And besides, I can't imagine they'll do anything bad with their adminship... we trust KTC, do we not? (I do, for one.) —Giggy 10:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

From recollection, I said I agreed with your assessment, not that I "told you" to remove them. It's still general courtesy to discuss actions which affect people, with them, wherever possible. Daniel (talk) 11:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not about trust. If it was, we should let anyone become an admin who is "trustworthy". It is about need. Again, I ask, where are the committee members, who have adminship already? Why will they not do the tasks that need the bit? Majorly ^talk 13:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said on your talk: your question of "where are the committee members?" doesn't matter. We know that often in committees, a smaller subset of people do the actual work... in this case, the three without permanent adminship have stated they have been carrying out most of the tasks and are now hampered in doing so. It is not our place to enforce on a committee that they need to get their members to do the work, or how to structure tasks. We agreed to grant temporary adminship until September, AND, until the work of the committee is done. It's not done. They still have work to do, there is material that needs posting, detailed results and the like, that hasn't been posted. I would ask you as a personal favor not to try to force this committee to do things a certain way, but allow them to be unencumbered. Alternatively, I would point out that everyone else here feels the adminship should be restored. That seems like a pretty clear consensus. I am going to restore them now. ++Lar: t/c 15:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The temporary adminships

• KTC (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections)
• Mark (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections)
• Philippe (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections)

have been restored. As before, they expire 16 September 2008, or earlier if the person temporarily adminned says they no longer need the adminship. I would commend all three of KTC, Philippe and Mark to consider running for permanent adminship, and I would like to express my thanks for their patience while we worked through this. ++Lar: t/c 15:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

September is still excessive. 6 months for one election? Really. Majorly ^talk 16:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You know, Majorly, the reason I'm not a permanent admin is that I usually don't have the need. I find it ironic that when I actually do have the need, and followed procedures to have temporary adminship granted for a sufficient period of time to get the work done, you remove the rights because you feel I don't need them (and suggest that the permanent admins should be doing that!) It's exactly the wrong tack to take to protect userrights - it could encourage me to go out and apply for permanent rights that I really don't need, just for the few months that I do need them. The work of the committee is not complete - it doesn't end when voting does. For instance, we have a significant amount of follow-up data to do and a post-mortem analysis that we'll be working on. Your action was premature. (And it would have been nice if you'd mentioned to me that you did it.) Philippe 18:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It was not because I didn't feel you didn't need them. What does it matter what I feel? The bureaucrat should have no feeling when promoting/demoting someone, and I didn't. I understand it doesn't end when voting ends, but I cannot believe it'll last 3 more months. Anyhow, I think all the pages should be unprotected that need to be. Now the election is over (for most people), no one will be interested in editing them. Majorly ^talk 18:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I find your comment here on when you want the rights to be removed interesting. "When the election concludes". Well, it concluded the moment you announced Ting Chen won! The fact you want to do extra work, which is for the most part not necessary is up to you, but I feel that 3 months extra adminship for this purpose is outstaying your purpose. Majorly ^talk 18:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Forget it, I give up. No point in arguing about this, I'm beaten. Majorly ^talk 19:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)