Meta talk:Administrators/Removal/October 2011
Hi there - I've been informed that there is currently a consideration of rights removal for two WMF employees (Tfinc and Tbayer (WMF)) who have a sysop flag here. However, I don't see them on either list. When I queried, I was pointed to an etherpad at this address. I respectfully request that an exception be made for User:Tbayer (WMF), who is the Foundation's Movement Communications Manager and therefore needs access to the Centralnotice system. Under the principle of least access, we granted him meta admin since that's what he needed, as opposed to full staff rights.
In the case of Tfinc, he now has staff rights, and so these rights are redundant.
It seems to me that these discussions should not be happening on an etherpad (why not use the wiki?) and that in the case of staff members who need the rights for their work, we should make appropriate accommodation.
Philippe (WMF) 18:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hello, Philippe. I personally have no problems with Tbayer (WMF) having the flag (other 'crats may have different opinion); thanks for clarifying this. The Etherpad was used here because it allowed us to collaborate on the list quickly while otherwise we would have been having edit conflicts; there was not really much discussion there since the rules are pretty clear and straightforward (I would not put any non-obvious decision without discussing on-wiki first). vvvt 18:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have no idea why we have to defend etherpad use. We might have been using the IRC or talking drums to tally the votes for all I care, it doesn't matter. Per policy, making below 10 edits does not require notice to the user. If there is supposed to be exemption for staff it might be worth considering to amend the policy first, before asking us to explain. there shouldn't even be a discussion for you to see, per policy. Theo10011 19:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Making 10 logged actions within the past six months is a completely arbitrary and meaningless metric. Why do we have this policy again? I think most of the people who pushed for it the first time have now left Wikimedia. Can we get rid of it of it now and pretend it never happened? (And I say this as someone who's probably more active than nearly any other admin listed.) --MZMcBride 23:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
The policy got changed to an arbitrary standard in this edit. A subsequent edit removed the "edits" requirement. The talk page has no real consensus for anything more than removing adminship from truly inactive accounts. It'd be nice if there were some firmer consensus before people started stripping rights away from individuals based on Majorly's whims a few years ago. --MZMcBride 23:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- No one seems to have complained or tried to change the policy within the two and a half year it is there. This is also a bit like a consensus, just not spoken out. The only people who complain are those, who are pretty much inactive. If you do an action from time to time, then it shouldn't be too much work to sign here and saying you want to keep the right. It is in my opinion also a way to say "Hello, you are an admin here, don't forget about it". Those with less than 10 actions probably don't need their right anyway. I still agree with the policy. -Barras 18:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)