Stewards' noticeboard/Archives/2010-05
 | Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in May 2010, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index. |
Problem at ce.wp
- From SRG --Dferg 17:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Please see ce:, behind the logo there is an image of the chechen separatist flag. I know some Wikipedias have national flags or flags representing subnational entities on their sites, but the flag is in the top-left corner, most prominently displayed over every article, and is also representative not of an ethnicity (Chechens and Chechnya have a more "neutral" flag that could also be used), but of a very controversial political entity associated with violent conflict by many. --149.169.113.95 07:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
As you all are probably aware, the community is revisiting the decision to permit Jimbo to have founder rights. In the current tally as of this writing, it's 3-1 AGAINST him retaining his rights. This ratio may well change, of course, as discussion progresses.
But, since it is being considered, it seems start thinking about how the Stewards will react if the community does choose to revoke Jimbo's status.
RFA has criteria already established, but founder rights have no pre-existing procedures, so now might be a good time to think about what sort of criteria to use in judging consensus and implementing this change, if the community deems it necessary. --Alecmconroy 17:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
The flag is remarkably expansive— and if Wikimedia wanted to make a special privilege for board members it could do so— but it has not and it has repeatedly stated that Jimmy takes these actions as a "thought leader" in the community, and not as a member of the board. The history of this permission is such that it was created in order to preserve Jimmy's ability to sysop/desysop people on English Wikipedia when meta had decided to remove his steward status due to inactivity. I believe that there appears to be sufficient approval for his continued direct involvement on English Wikipedia. But in more recent times the permission is being used to grant sysop authority on projects where its user has no such history or experience. As such, I think we would want to at least see a simple majority in favour in order to keep the permission. I believe it is still the case that enwp wishes Jimmy to still have the ability to modify sysop status on their project at will— this could be accomplished simply by making that permission clear then any steward could carry out his requested changes on enwp promptly. --Gmaxwell 18:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Note: Mr. Wales has said he is not going to block users on enwp anymore, and has long deferred the desysopping ability to the ArbCom. Snowolf How can I help? 19:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- "I believe it is still the case that enwp wishes Jimmy to still have the ability to modify sysop status on their project at will"—Do you have any evidence of this? Tony1 03:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Go start a poll on enwiki if you want to change something. Prodego talk 03:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Prodego, I am used to a greater level of overt civility. I mentioned nothing about wanting to change anything on en.WP; I simply asked for evidence of an assertion made here. Tony1 16:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Go start a poll on enwiki if you want to change something. Prodego talk 03:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- "I believe it is still the case that enwp wishes Jimmy to still have the ability to modify sysop status on their project at will"—Do you have any evidence of this? Tony1 03:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Not personally interested in this particular issue, for the sake of consistency, I strongly oppose stewards to take the so-called poll into consideration into their real action if the flag in question is removed or not; the founder flag is not concerned with enwiki alone, but the global community and related to each Wikimedia wikis. The poll, on the other hand, not globally informed but rather a phenomena of English speaking part of community which doesn't and will not cover the entire of the Wikimedia community. Most of the Wikimedia participators might not aware of that poll, or even haven't noticed the original issue of his commons speedy. I think if a poll on global flag should be held, it should be informed globally before the poll opens, like regular and annual steward elections or Board elections. English Wikipedia community can determine which flags and functions on English Wikipedia they have Jimbo retain or not, but it doesn't mean they alone have the right to determine to have someone retain a global flag, which affects other wikis at the same time. --Aphaia 07:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Problem at az.wp
This complaint by Gulmammad seems to merit consideration. Gulmammad makes a claim about systematic POV and strong blocking policies, but it would be good to hear the other sides of the issue in similar detail. Perhaps we can find an independent party who can review the discussions there and advise on what is going on. –SJ · talk | translate 14:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)