Stewards' noticeboard/Archives/2014-02

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Inactivity of Portuguese Wikipedia checkusers

Hi. I am here to inform that I am the only active checkuser of Portuguese Wikipedia. There's a total of three checkusers. One of them (Jbribeiro1) just reported that he will be in full Wikipause for 30 days. The other one (Nelson Teixeira) is completely inactive since October.

It is required that at least 2 checkusers remain on a wiki so they can mutually control and confirm their actions. Sadly, it won't be possible there at least for some days.

I am reporting here and leaving any decision to you. Thanks.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 02:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not overly concerned with a 30 day break, as the user still will fit within the definition of active as per the policy, and as a steward if we suspend the rights you can go and do things there anyway for no difference in result. I would think that if the community is concerned that we can suspend the rights for the period of absence, maybe put the information forward there, and let them determine what they would like to occur. Having to come to stewards does put a level impediment into the efficient process, especially with spambots.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Checkuser privileges removal on

Dear all, it became apparent to me that one of the CU's on (SpeedyGonsales) remained to this day in his CU seat despite the fact the voting for the removal of all of his rights was held more than two months ago (26.10. - 02.11.2013.).

The voting result concerning SpeedyGonsales was 38:45 (roughly 46%:54%) in favor of those opposing the motion to strip him of his functions [1].

However, according to the rules of, the necessary community support for the CU seat is not 50%, but 70%. Therefore, because he had only 54% of the community vote which is not enough for the CU privileges, I hereby submit to you that SpeedyGonsales is not considered fit for the CU function according to rules and ask of you, if you'd agree with my position, to remove those privileges from his account.

I would kindly ask you for your opinion and ruling, because I'm afraid that raising the question on in this situation would be intentionally misconstrued as personal attack and punished. Also, because of the complex situation and recent clashes on I would urge you to act, in accordance to your ruling, as soon as possible. --Imbehind (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I second this request, assuming that the threshold for CU privileges truly is 70%. Is there a link to the relevant guideline? Also, what level of support is required for bureaucrat privileges on hrwiki? Miranche (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Two information pages
  • Checkuser which talks about accession of rights requiring that level of consensus, though not about confirmations, or recalls. The stewards are expected to retain at about level of support.
  • Bureaucrat talks about the right, the application is usually based on consensus, and is usually a local decision made by your bureacrats.
 — billinghurst sDrewth 03:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you billinghurst, I saw these, they're very informative. I was wondering, though, if Imbehind or someone else could point to the relevant guidelines specific to hrwiki. I can't find anything in the obvious places but I admit I have not the time to search too closely. The existing bureaucrats have gained their privileges with 87.5% support or more. Miranche (talk) 04:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Local hrwiki rules will be on hrWP, and I would have thought links would have been available from hr:Wikipedija:Administratori. With regard to bureaucrats, I would say that generally there is convention or rules depending on the site. If the requirement is consensus, that is generally greater than 50% and usually substantially greater than 50%. The interwiki links from the hrwiki page or view pages like Meta:Administrators / Commons:Commons:Administrators you should see suitable enough examples of the processes. Local crats make determinations from there local rules; and where no local 'crats, then stewards undertake that role in their absence.

Checkuser is a high level right that is assessed by stewards, so local rules can only be stricter than the standard.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

You are OFC right. Croatian rules are the same. Here is the Croatian translation on Meta [2] used by The page is linked from official CU page in "See more" section [3], and thus relevant on I don't think that local wiki has the authority to override the CU policy anyway because the CU policy is a global one. --Imbehind 13:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I would also like to ask stewards to review the bureaucrat requirements for SpeedyGonsales as well. As Miranche pointed out above, please note that the voting that took place asked specifically for removal of all rights, including bureaucrat and CU, not just administrative ones [4]:

Croatian text: "Zbog brojnih pritužbi na njegov rad, predlažem ukidanje ovlasti birokrata, provjeritelja i administratora suradniku SpeedyGonsales"

My english translation: "Because of numerous complaints about his work, I propose the removal of bureaucrat, checkuser and administrator privileges for the user SpeedyGonsales"

Google translate: "Due to numerous complaints to his work, I suggest abolishing the powers of bureaucrats, Authenticator and associate administrator SpeedyGonsales" --Imbehind 00:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

As it stands, we cannot change hrwiki's requirements to becoming a bureaucrat. However, those for becoming a CU are decided by the Foundation, which is why I've asked SG to start a vote of confidence (cf. his talk page). Elfix 08:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Elfix. FYI there may not even exist an explicit requirement for becoming a bureaucrat on hrwiki, which created the current situation where there's a crat with unprecedentedly low support. I realize this will likely be resolved only when the community itself agrees on the requirements. Miranche (talk) 05:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Closed Closed From SG's talk page, it seems that Elfix removed his CU right on January 28. SJ talk  10:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)