Meta talk:Administrators
- Please add new topics to the bottom of this page
[edit] Oversight
Shouldn't having oversight access alone also qualify someone here? Normally, Oversight is given the same prestige as CheckUser, and many users with one of these two have the other as well.Jasper Deng 04:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- Consensus is that CheckUser or 'crat isn't sufficient either... not sure why it's on there. The requirement is adminship on a content wiki. Fortunately that includes basically all checkusers, oversighters and bureaucrats. Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm going to be bold and remove all the possible candidates except adminship, because I don't know if all wikis make bureaucrats admins, and the English Wikipedia allows people to have CheckUser and/or Oversight without adminship.Jasper Deng 04:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- I undid your edit as this was written years ago. More discussion is required. Plus not everything you said is correct. On "every" Wiki you need to be an administrator before getting bureaucrat access, besides that you'll automatically 'crat access if you resign as an admin. Trijnstel (talk) 15:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Not quite true. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Solved, see here and here. Trijnstel (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oh... tell me the policy that disallows people from having the crat right while not being an admin. Sorry, but this removal of rights was probably a very poor move. -Barras talk 16:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- X! left a month ago and removed all the rights he *could* remove, which he can't with the 'crat rights. Therefore I thought this was non-controversial. Plus if the local bureaucrats disagree with me, they're free to re-add the right again as I said on the bureaucrat noticeboard. Trijnstel (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- It is actually possible that he left this right on purpose on his account. Secondly, we don't usually act (non-controversial) on such big wikis. If someone felt the need, they'd have requested the removal already or X! would've asked here himself as he knows where to get help. So if I remove myself somewhere my admin rights and keep the crat mop, I need to be afraid now that some steward comes and removes my crat right from me without any good reason? Very disappointing. -Barras talk 16:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- X! left a month ago and removed all the rights he *could* remove, which he can't with the 'crat rights. Therefore I thought this was non-controversial. Plus if the local bureaucrats disagree with me, they're free to re-add the right again as I said on the bureaucrat noticeboard. Trijnstel (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oh... tell me the policy that disallows people from having the crat right while not being an admin. Sorry, but this removal of rights was probably a very poor move. -Barras talk 16:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Not quite true. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- I undid your edit as this was written years ago. More discussion is required. Plus not everything you said is correct. On "every" Wiki you need to be an administrator before getting bureaucrat access, besides that you'll automatically 'crat access if you resign as an admin. Trijnstel (talk) 15:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm going to be bold and remove all the possible candidates except adminship, because I don't know if all wikis make bureaucrats admins, and the English Wikipedia allows people to have CheckUser and/or Oversight without adminship.Jasper Deng 04:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Solved┌──────────────────────────┘
I'm quite surprised to see this, and I'm disappointed. The English Wikipedia was well aware of X!'s retirement, as were the bureaucrats. If they wanted to remove him, they would've made a request. There is no policy against it, and it flies in the face of our requirement not to meddle in local decisions. Please do not repeat something like this again. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Again, I thought it was non-controversial because he resigned completely. Apparantly I made a mistake here. My sincere apologies. Trijnstel (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Getting past the mess with X!'s retirement, what's the answer to my original question here?Jasper Deng (talk) 06:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] "No exact expiry set" on temporary administrators
I find those statements rather disturbing, as I find disturbing that this users are being promoted by the staff without proper community discussion as prescribed by policy. This is wrong and added without community support. If this community has spent time developing policies they should be followed: if you want temporary adminship, ask and we will see. Indefinite temporary adminship should be an exception and if so it must be community approved too. Please share your thoughts on this issue. Thanks. —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 21:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Just to clarify: I do not think that the change made nor the promotions are made in bad faith; but since we gave us policies I think they should be followed; and the exceptions should remain exceptions nor the general rule. Regards. —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 21:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
