Meta:Requests for bureaucratship/Gmeijssen

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

Gmeijssen[edit]

Gmeijssen (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • CA • email)

I would like bureaucratship on Meta in order to support the Translate extension and enable people as a Translate administrator when I support them for this functionality. I do this as part of my job of outreach person for the WMF localisation team. Thanks, Gmeijssen 18:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Long standing admin. Trusted user. I personally do not get along with Gerard and have had some well known disputes. However, I think he would use the tools properly. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
support, why not. —DerHexer (Talk) 19:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is this a request for a temporary flag? If so, how long do you need it? --WizardOfOz ^talk 19:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Usually bureaucratship can only be obtained by admins. As this account does not have adminrights, is it needed to give those rights as well, or do you only need cratrights? Trijnstel 19:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
His account User:GerardM has sysop flag. --WizardOfOz ^talk 19:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but Gmeijssen doesn't have that flag. And this is the account he wants to use... Trijnstel 19:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See below for a more clear explanation. Trijnstel 20:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, deferring to Theo's broader understanding of this process, as indicated below. -Pete F 21:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC) Support, Foundation staff and contractors expressing a need for functionary access should generally be accommodated, as a great deal of consideration goes into how their work advances the mission and the strategic plan in the normal course of their work. Community inquiries should of course be answered as much as possible/reasonable, but we should take care not to impede progress unnecessarily. Process conventions like those mentioned by Trijnstel above need not be met in these cases. -Pete F 20:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you both (WizardOfOz and Peteforsyth) doesn't get my point. It was a more technical question: do we only give cratrights to Gmeijssen or also adminrights to this account? (I'm not talking about GerardM.) I don't know if it's possible to only give cratrights without adminrights, that's all. Trijnstel 20:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For usual you have right. But as he is one of the heads for the translations and already trusted sysop here on meta with his second account , I can´t see nothing wrong if he get a temporary flag for the duration of the implementation as he is one of few who knows how it works and what should be done. --WizardOfOz ^talk 20:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a problem as well (;-)), but as I recall correctly you would give Gmeijssen admin + cratrights in the same time (and not only cratrights?)? Trijnstel 20:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No just a temporary crat flag for granting of trenslation administrators untill we have a working system and the implementation is done. --WizardOfOz ^talk 20:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see, this is more of a technical question. Sorry for misunderstanding. I see no harm in adding both admin and 'crat simultaneously to the Gmeijssen account, so I would think that's the best course of action. And this request should have no impact on Gerard's non-WMF account; adding 'crat to that account would, I believe, require its separate consensus based on his record and interests as a volunteer, not as a WMF contractor. -Pete F 20:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is getting complicated, and its rather un-necessary. GerardM has admin rights on his volunteer account, which were barely removed due to inactivity if not for him campaigning for Abigor's unblock. Gmeijssen is a staff account, it can not be granted crat rights without sysop rights on Meta, per policy. We can not and should not take a short cut just because he's staff. He can request staff rights from other staff members, which should give him the same or more level of access. There is no need to complicate the two, and I would ask closing 'crat and other admins to dismiss this request, or only grant temp. rights. This might set a bad precedent for future rights request that will just complicate things. Staff members are not entitled to bypass requirements for local rights, when GerardM's contract/position does end that account will be locked, it would not be smart to leave 'crat rights since that account itself is temporary. Theo10011 20:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Theo, I must admit I am having trouble following the technical considerations here, and the current established process. My main point is that staff needing to accomplish things should be granted the rights they need without too much bureaucratic interference. I think it would be helpful if you could outline, with a few more specifics, what you think is the best course of action? (As a point of reference, when I was staff, I had all rights automatically; but it's my understanding that more recently, staff are only given rights upon more specific request, through processes like these. So in particular, your point "he can request staff rights from other staff members" -- I'm not sure what the current standards are around that, but i thought the "requests for temporary adminship" section above, which I've seen used for staff and contractors, was there for a reason.) -Pete F 20:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pete, Philippe usually asks a steward to assign staff rights to a new staff member. I know Philippe, himself is worried about handing out staff rights to new users, since they have a lot of powerful tools at their disposal -OS etc.. There is no request process and it takes probably less than a min. to request those rights. It ensures that someone at WMF is keeping track of those rights, rather than someone using their status as staff to just request rights on different wikis. In this case, 'crat rights are being asked on a new temp. staff account, which would be locked when his term expires. It would circumvent all local requirements for the right which I think is not ideal. We also have no way to know that this is a legitimate request by WMF, or someone acting alone, so for reasons of clarity, it is ideal that the regular contact at WMF, like Philippe or someone else weigh in and ask for staff or 'crat rights. Staff rights should allow him to do the same, if not, Philippe should be the one making this request for gerardM as the usual point of contact. My point is, this is not the proper procedure or channel. Again, IMO this sets a bad precedent where someone who is a new staff member/contractor can request any rights on any wiki without even knowledge of the concerned person at WMF. Theo10011 20:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, obviously. Granting staff accounts the rights they need to do their job should be uncontroversial, and it's a good principle to limit those rights to the minimum needed. Furthermore the user (if not the account) clearly meets the requirements. I see no problem with this. Jafeluv 20:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose for all the reasons Theo10011 already stated. If he wants a staff flag, can be done in few seconds. But 'cratship is reserved for community members, and his volunteer account almost lost his flag due inactivity a few days back. Béria Lima ^msg 21:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. User is WMF staff, and I don't see why they should need to get the staff flag instead of just being able to temporarily have access to the 'crat flag here. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm in agreement with Theo. I also think that the local bureaucrats should handle this task. Transparancy is always best. Local bureaucrats can act quickly to help this get up and running. I'm also a bit disturbed by the concept that a person's volunteer identity, which is earned through volunteer activities, somehow spills over to their staff identity. People with the staff bit are responsible to the foundation, whereas people with the meta crat bit should answer to the community. fr33kman 22:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nay per Theo. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 01:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with Jafeluv that we should care for limiting these flags to the minimum needed. That is why I'm not agreed with giving him any of these flags. What is the need? Why don't just open a request for adminship to the accounts that need it? Meta has a few active bureaucrats that can quickly handle these rights changing. Is there any need for him to do it by himself instead of requesting current 'crats to do?” T_ele^s (T _{@ L C S}) 03:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose another option would be to have a "Translation bureaucrat" group that can assign Translation administrator rights? Jafeluv 11:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per people above. --თოგო ^(D) 09:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --N KOzi^Talk 10:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose extra power flags for different accounts of the same person? For me a "no-go"! If some users need translation admin rights, there'll be enough crats (and if needed stews) to flag those! a×p_de ^Hello! 12:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per a number of the above comments. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Theo. ^Email Vaibhav ^Talk 16:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the request can't be satisfied, per policy, because this account has not sysop rights. That said, I'm very happy that the Translate extension has been enabled on Meta and the localisation team is working on it, and it's good that Gerard wants to help us with the process, so I would support him for bureaucratship on his volunteer account (if he meets the requirements): we give 'crat flag quite easily on Meta, he's a long-standing and expert cross-wiki and Meta user and sysop and his help would be useful. Before this discussion we should have understood some things (which we have to discuss now, probably on Meta:Babel): we've not even decided if/how much we need this group (perhaps sysops can do this), nor who is going to assign it (could be sysops or 'crats, or someone else for the test period). Nemo 17:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral now however inclining to oppose. But I'd like to see two questions on the top answered before saying anything decisive. --Aphaia 18:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I agree with Teles, I do not like the idea of multiple accounts with various flags all be edited by the same person. Additionally, I am slightly bothered by Gmeijssen (talk • contribs • email)'s lack of responses to the questions posed here. If I am going to feel comfortable supporting a request for 'crat rights on someones volunteer account I would like to see that they are at least attentive to prudent issues and are reasonably active. Lastly, this edit shows an apparent lack of understanding of basic Meta procedures. Tiptoety ^talk 18:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus at this time to promote bureaucrat rights, sorry. -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 09:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]