Stewards' noticeboard

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
(Redirected from Stewards noticeboard)
Jump to: navigation, search
Stewards Stewards' noticeboard Archives
Welcome to the stewards' noticeboard. This message board is for discussing issues on Wikimedia projects that are related to steward work. Please post your messages at the bottom of the page and do not forget to sign it. Thank you.
For stewards

Request for return of Checkuser right after period of poor health[edit]

I've requested my CU rights back at Steward_requests/Permissions#INeverCry@Commons. Snowolf objects, while Trijnstel supported my request, which I started at commons:Commons:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Request_for_return_of_Checkuser_right, along with 2 of our most active local 'crats. It's been around 6 months since I was a CU, but I performed 10000 checks as a CU, and I can guarantee that I know what I'm doing with the tool, and can use it effectively right now. I'm currently the 2nd most active admin in Commons history, with nearly 200000 log actions, and #1 all time in blocks.

I'm requesting the opinion of other stewards on this, as Snowolf is suggesting that the opinions of local Commons 'crats be disregarded. I would also like to stress that I layed down the CU tool and sysop due to ill health, which has improved quite a bit, and that I requested my sysop rights back 2 months ago on Commons (only 4 months after resigning as CU), but wasn't sure I could handle CU, so I refrained from asking for CU back at that time. Now, after 2 months of sustaining a very high level of activity as a sysop at Commons, I believe my health is good enough for me to return to CU activity as well. Thanks for your consideration. INeverCry 01:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem giving the rights back to INeverCry without another request. If he kept the bit but did not use it, he would not have lost it as he still meets the criteria for retaining admin tools on Commons. Since he did not resign under a cloud, I see no difference between self-requesting the removal/reinstatement of tools or keeping them but not using them. Ajraddatz (talk) 02:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I see no problem with granting the tools. I think the old request for checkusership is valid. We've had similiar situations in the past, for example myself, where I got my rights back after a while or Mard who got his (steward-)rights back twice after a little break for whatever reason. Herbythyme got also his rights back after only a short discussion on RFH, that was based on a then 3 years old RfCU and was re-granted after an almost one year break. Since you did leave in good standing, I see no issues with granting you CU rights. -Barras talk 10:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
To me the health issue is irrelevant, it is whether the community wishes this to be ... and in that regard some experienced bureaucrats at Commons have expressed their opinion, and the time period is not excessive, ie. not greater than one year inactivity, and the user departed the role on good terms. As a general comment about the length of time that would require a revote, I would say one year, as that aligns with the period of inactivity for removal. (Noting that this is a wiki which qualifies as my having a vested interest)  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
We are all writing personal opinions here as there is no rule for these specific cases (which are not rare) and requesting it is out of regular procedures. So, I also bring my personal opinion that six months of inactivity and a request more than a year ago is a lot of time. For me, all these cases should go for community input in order to keep transparency. Bureaucrats are indeed trusted, but I don't think they can change too much when we are talking about checkuser issues (I would pay more attention to the opinion of other Commons' checkusers for instance). Despite he has done a tremendous work with impressive numbers, I don't think that, in these circumstances, it is too much asking for opening another request. It's a very weak oppose, as I wouldn't mind if others are willing to approve, but when dealing with checkuser I always prefer to follow written procedures.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 22:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Totally agree that it is personal opinion/interpretation, and the sway point for me was that the candidate could have sat and been inactive for six months, and still retained the CU bit, instead they were vocal. The policy is mute on reappointment, renomination or regaining rights, and what we are doing is working towards some convention. I am happy to put it back to a community comment that is broader than 'crats and CU, though whether we need a full cycle is an interesting concept, and one worthy of the discussion. If you asked my personal opinion, I would prefer that all these more advanced rights had some sort of review, rather than a set and forget approach.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

No, i think, that INeverCry is enough furious (this and this) and therefore she can will use CU rights irresponsibly. Shes not nor good admin (my indef. block on commons), much less CU and i havent any reason trust she.--Toma646 (talk) 07:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment Comment I shouldn't have laid down the tools because of my illness, I should have just held on to them, so that I wouldn't have to beg to get them back. I guess I fucked myself. I would've kept this going, but to see an oppose from Teles, who I've supported and worked with, makes me want this to be done with. I'll withdraw the request, and go on about my business. INeverCry 02:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
@INeverCry: Couldn't you wait for a few more days? I'm fairly sure it would end up in your favor... I mean, just because one person is "weakly against" returning a flag, you immediately withdraw it? We're all human beings and I can certainly understand their point. Besides, what if they told you to re-apply? Would you refuse that too then? The policy isn't clear on returning flags after a while; you can't blame any individual for this. Trijnsteltalk 14:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm just commenting on the policy rather than the specifics of INC's request and whether or not it should be granted. According to the policy there are two ways that CheckUser rights are assigned (paraphrased for relevant parts):
"On wikis with an Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) ... CheckUsers can be appointed by the Arbitrators only."
"On a wiki without an Arbitration Committee... The community must approve local CheckUsers. After gaining consensus (at least 70%-80% in pro/con voting or the highest number of votes in multiple choice elections) in his local community, and with at least 25-30 editors' approval."
Without wanting to overly wikilawyer, I don't see any clause allowing for reassignment of rights following removal (with the exception of temporary removal when there is only one CheckUser left on the project) without satisfying one or the other clause. Having one or more local 'crats approve the reassignment is, I feel, treating them as a quasi-Arbcom and isn't supported under the policy. QuiteUnusual (talk) 15:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, who says the "at least 25-30 editors' approval" is revoked after the CU flag is removed under uncontroversial circumstances? Vogone (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
...and why would it be acceptable to remove and return checkuser rights when the second last CU resigns but not in other uncontroversial circumstances? Ajraddatz (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't necessarily agree with the policy, I just think that the policy doesn't explicitly allow resignation / reassignment and therefore we can't action this request (or at least need to arrive at a consensus that the policy implicitly allows it). QuiteUnusual (talk) 07:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Allow me to bring stewards' attention to this poisonous request filed by INeverCry at Meta. It's one thing (wrong as it is) to say that Diogo is my "sock", quite another to say that I am a sock of Diogo, and that my account should thus be locked on all projects. Apart from the faulty logic, the fact that INeverCry was (ironically) himself being used as a "sock" by Cirt (who tricked him, behind everyone's backs, and told him what to do privately by email [1]) does not excuse him from his unscrupulous behavior, and apparent zero understanding of policy. That someone like INeverCry ever made it to CU anywhere is (I confess it) extremely concerning to me, and I submit should be concerning to all level-headed stewards as well. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@DanielTom: @Toma646: this would be a much better place for you to address your issues. INeverCry 22:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
@INeverCry: Learn to ignore the peanut gallery. Joining a fight lessens credibility.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

We did grant a similar request in the last few months on arwiki: Steward_requests/Permissions/2014-08#Avocato.40arwiki. However, local policy there explicitly allows for regranting of CU rights by stewards. Perhaps the Commons community should hold a similar discussion (on another note, I have noticed resysopping requests attracting some discussion as things are apparently not very clear-cut). I would have felt a bit more comfortable with this request if Commons had a policy regarding this matter. --Rschen7754 01:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

INeverCry, a month ago, said "F*ck you" to a steward at Meta: "Fuck you Andrew, you arrogant shitbag." (If it had been me using those words, I know I would be immediately blocked indefinitely.) Now INeverCry just sent me a link telling me to "go f*ck [myself]". Why isn't this a blockable offense? ~ DanielTom (talk) 07:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Likely because you came here whining about a 2-year old block to try and create some drama. Why aren't you blocked? You're a troll who only other trolls can even stand, and only when you're teaming up for some trolling and harassment, as you did with Deskana, and yet they let you stick around. Did you like that link you shit-eating runt? Perhaps you can translate it. That's why you're supposedly useful right? As for a block for me, I won't be here after tonight so anyone who likes can block at will. As for indefs, I think they save those for lying sockmasters and their little brother who did it... INeverCry 08:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
You see, because you are not blocked, even after "retiring" (for the hundredth time), you still come back crying not just with the usual baseless accusations ("trolling, "harassment", "lying", etc.), but also with completely gratuitous insults, like calling me a "shit-eating runt". (Are stewards going to let this pass again?) ~ DanielTom (talk) 09:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Personally I would think that in general action regarding civility issues on Meta wouldn't be by Stewards - they'd be handled by a Meta admin. QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • From where I'm sitting this request had run its course. The requester has withdrawn, retired from meta, and devolved into a shouting match with who he calls trolls. I would still like to nail down a way for former CUs in good standing to have the rights returned to them, but I am very unimpressed with INeverCry's lack of good judgement here. I expect there to be a bit more of a behavioural difference between the functionaries and the supposed trolls. I would also appreciate it if DanielTom could drop the stick... Ajraddatz (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)