Requests for comment/Removal of permanent access of admins in small wikis

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The following request for comments is closed. Clear community consensus against this proposal. --Rschen7754 19:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About a year I see steward are not granting sysop access to users in small wikis permanently, neither bureaucrat access is granting. Here by, I request commenting on this to remove bureaucrat access of users who have permanently in small wikis and limiting sysop access with an expiration exactly like granting these two access. Mjbmr (discussioncontribs) 08:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My idea is that aome trusted users in small wikis can have indefinite (Note: NOT infinite or permanent) adminship. They are logged at a new page. These users' adminship are never expired, but they will be desysoped if they don't use their adminship for 1 year.--GZWDer (talk) 11:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Contra to 'indefinite adminship' for bureaucrats. In smaller wikis there's sometimes no need for crat-actions for a longer time. The more it is important, that crats can be active as soon as their activity is needed. If admins are inactive for a longer time, the community can decide to eventually de-sysop them. I'm afraid, we are going to make rules for just a couple of negative cases. These cases can be discussed individually and decisions can made by stewards then. --Murma174 (talk) 09:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC) (admin and crat on frrwiki)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Contra Admins and bureaucrats are desysoped, if they are inactive for more than two years. I don't see any need for tightening this rule. --Holder (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Contra per Holder --Joe Watzmo (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Contra There is no need for change of rules. --Howan Hansi (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose not really permanent, it's "indefinite", as long they still do edit and do logged action you can not remove it.--AldNonymousBicara? 19:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Contra as per Holder. --Zinneke (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC) (Admin on lb lbwiki)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Contra as per Holder, nothing to add. --Jwh (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Contra as per Holder. --Iwoelbern (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC) (Admin on ndswiki)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Contra I don't see any reason to change this. --RobTorgel (talk) 08:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose per Holder. The harm for the community in case a local admin discovers that this permanent permission expires is higher than in case a local admin is inactive, but for less than 2 years — NickK (talk) 14:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Support. We do have global sysops and stewards, so why keep bureaucrats or permanent admins in small wikis. I am waiting to quit my last bureaucrat flag on Chinese Wiktionary and my admin flag on Chinese Wikiquote, on the condition that there is no other bureaucrat or permanent admin.--Jusjih (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The point is that global sysops and stewards are not supposed to do any community-related work, like imposing local policies, implementing changes to interface, resolving edit wars etc. They are good at fighting vandalism, but smaller wikis also have their communities that have to be represented — NickK (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Jusjih: GS can't enforce specific local policy on local wikis, it's not their scope, this is why I don't enforce ace:Wikipedia:Policy on awrah images in Acehnese Wikipedia (a local policy) on Ace.wp when this wiki only have 0 admin, it's simply not GS job/scope, local admins should be the one who enforce it, this is what set the differences between GS and local admin, they are simply different because of this.--AldNonymousBicara? 23:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose per Holder. --Gschupfta Ferdl (talk) 06:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose with a passion per Holder. If it ain't broke don't fix it. Caliburn (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose I don't see any reason to change this. --Robby (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose per Holder. Unless the proposer can offer any further reasoning as to why this had ought to be changed, I can't see any reason to support this. Tharthan (talk) 00:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose per above, especially Holder. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 04:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]