Meta talk:Administrators/confirm/Archive 2

See Meta talk:Administrators/confirm/Archive for the archive index.

October reconfirmations[edit]

I've started the ball rolling on this month's reconfirmations, which seem a little overdue. I thought this time it was worth listing which user rights need confirming for each candidate, to avoid the confusion there was last time in interpreting votes. WJBscribe (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've added it to the {{Votings}} template. Looks like last time we decided on a two week run. Bureaucrat chat is at Meta:Administrators/confirm/bureaucrat chat/October 2008 and non-bureaucrats are welcome to comment on the bureaucrat chat at Meta talk:Administrators/confirm/bureaucrat chat/October 2008 (Both blank as of this post) Kylu 22:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two weeks sounds right - that means bureaucrats can close this towards the end of the 21st... (and you never know, this one may be straightforward enough that no chat is needed) WJBscribe (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kylu falls over laughing. Kylu 01:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it could happen. ++Lar: t/c 04:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time to close?[edit]

Just to note that these reconfirmations have now run for the required 2 weeks - I believe meta bureaucrats can now close them at their convenience. WJBscribe (talk) 23:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Instructions Change[edit]

Thanks EVula for fixing that old rule, I don't think I've ever seen it be followed, EVAR. I've tweaked the instructions a bit as well[1], but we may need to update some other pages to reflect that we use this for more then confirming +sysop now. Thanks! xaosflux ^Talk 02:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection[edit]

Why is this page protected? I have had my admin rights removed (fair enough) and want to add a closing comment, but now I am unable to! --HappyDog 23:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To stop people adding extra votes. Majorly ^talk 23:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can still comment here, of course. Kylu 00:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but then my comment is not archived along with the rest of the discussion. --HappyDog 00:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Write the comment here, and an admin can add it for you. Majorly ^talk 01:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Please add the following after the final verdict:

- Fair enough, however I'm a little disappointed by the process. So far, no-one has explained why this right is being removed, or pointed to a policy that suggests that this should be the case. Perhaps your policy docs are out of date? Or maybe just hard to find. Of the policies listed at Meta:Administrators#Policy_for_de-adminship the only one that would apply to me is if I am for some reason considered an untrusted user. Is that the reaons? If not, what is? I just don't understand what the point of this process is, or where it originates from. --HappyDog 17:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also the fact you've made fewer than 50 edits this past year, and you haven't deleted anything for nearly a year (out of a total of 10 deletes). Majorly ^talk 17:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Any sysop inactive on Meta will be desysopped". Quoted from Meta:Administrators#Inactivity. You are inactive, and so you were desysopped. It's not that we don't trust you, it's that you never used the tools. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I just rewrote that section. But the point is, HappyDog made 10 deletes, and fewer than 50 edits in the past year. If people believe he's inactive, he ought to accept that point, instead of picking at semantics (whether it said AND or OR is irrelevant, he failed to meet at least one criterion). Majorly ^talk 20:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that I am not particularly active. However I am not inactive. There are two points here: (1) that until your recent edit there was a specific definition of inactive which I didn't meet, and therefore by that definition I was not inactive. Now (by the new definition) it appears there is a more subjective definition of inactivity, which is fair enough (so long as there is community agreement for that change). All my points regarding inactivity were based on the original definition and so no longer apply (2) The second point is that I'm not sure what this process for removing rights is for. The administrators page implies it is to get rid of troublesome admins, or people who no longer need the rights ('a poll to express disagreement with the current situation'). In my particular situation I am an irregular user of the admin rights, and only use them for a very specific purpose - to deal with transwiki to MediaWiki.org. If no issues arise that require admin rights, then I will not be using these rights, however as occasions arise when they are needed they are very useful indeed. I wonder why there is opposition to a trustworthy user having these rights for a specific constructive purpose (even if they are used rarely)? --HappyDog 05:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking only to "what this process for removing rights is for", this process is primarily for removing access that is no longer required. Best security practices call for the principle of least privilege when dealing with permissions, and most of the removals done here are due to dormancy. The confirmation also is an opportunity for the community to remove access from someone that isn't breaking policies, "but is creating work for the community because of lack of trust". Admins that are purposefully causing problems will be left be until a new confirmation, but will be dealt with swiftly. xaosflux ^Talk 13:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As to the rest of your needs, there is nothing preventing you from asking for sysop access again, even temporary sysop access to work on just the area you need (transwiki), although Special:Export does not require access, and Import: at media: is not controlled here. (perhaps I'm missing part of your process). Thank you, xaosflux ^Talk 13:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup - most of the work doesn't require any special rights, but occasionally there are protected pages that need transwikiing (and replacing with soft redirects), plus there are protected templates that sometimes need modifying, as well as general clean-up (deletion of MW items that don't need keeping anywhere, for example). To be honest, I probably won't bother going through the whole admin process again - my main concern is MW.org, and if there are problems on meta then I guess that's no longer my concern. Hopefully someone will pick them up and fix them eventually, but if not, c'est la vie. --16:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) Why not just leave a note for an active admin to un-protect the page? You've said yourself that it's infrequent: Users on other projects deal with this quite often. The only other possibility is that you see this as a loss of station, that is, a perceived loss of status in the community due to not having an admin-bit. I doubt anyone thinks less of you because of this: It's how one deals with the permissions one has that generates respect. Kylu 18:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]