Stewards' noticeboard

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
(Redirected from Stewards noticeboard)
Jump to: navigation, search
Stewards Stewards' noticeboard Archives
Welcome to the stewards' noticeboard. This message board is for discussing issues on Wikimedia projects that are related to steward work. Please post your messages at the bottom of the page and do not forget to sign it. Thank you.
  • This page is automatically archived by SpBot. Threads older than 30 days will be moved to the archive.
Stewards
Meta-Wiki Steward.svg
Requests
For stewards
Noticeboards
Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 2 days and sections whose oldest comment is older than 30 days.

Wong128hk@zhwikiquote administrator term[edit]

Would any disinterested stewards please reconsider the one-year administrator term of this user? [1] I consider new steward NahidSultan has granted excessively long permission [2] for these reasons [3]:

  1. Special:CentralAuth/验证码 has tried to support twice, but then blocked globally, so it should probably have not been counted.
  2. Special:CentralAuth/Stang and Special:CentralAuth/Richard923888 have not edited on Chinese Wikiquote often, so their supports should probably have not been overvalued.
  3. Frequent failure to have edit summaries may suggest the risk of leaving no reason for administrator's privileged actions, so I have considered the candidate not trustworthy. Having served a year before does not automatically justify similar renewal.
  4. Stewards policy#Don't override consensus: "If there are any doubts as to whether or not an action should be performed, stewards should not act unless it is an emergency situation requiring immediate action or there are no active local users to do it." Therefore, I consider NahidSultan's granting one year without acknowledging the above points [4] too fast. If I were a disinterested steward, I would mark it on hold pending further review.
  5. Steward handbook#Administrator and bureaucrat rights: "Three months is a common period for temporary rights."
  6. Steward handbook#Temporary rights: "The precise duration is a matter of discretion; three months and six months appear to be the most common."

As a former steward and former Chinese Wikiquote bureaucrat who has been willing to yield the privilege to grant administrators to you stewards, shortening the permission to a fairer term seems better, then Chinese Wikiquote will hold a new vote as desired. Granting one year for our very small community looks too premature when the supports have not been unanimous. Thanks for understanding as I have appealed to NahidSultan unsuccessfully.--Jusjih (talk) 00:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Is the difference between 6 months and 12 months so significant? If that there was no consensus, as you think, then the permission should not have been granted at all. But the length of temporal administrative access has never been proportional to the number of votes that one got. Ruslik (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely yes. The differences among 1 month, 3, 6, 12 months, and permanent permissions are very significant and important. Otherwise, why should I have trusted you stewards by my resigning as a bureaucrat on many smaller Chinese wikis? I never insist that the permission should not have been granted at all, but I would consider granting 1 to 3 months only much more appropriate for this case. Perhaps from now on the length of temporal administrative access should be proportional to the number of votes that one got, but just a soft guideline, not a hard rule. Otherwise, should suspicious sock puppetry be counted? Thanks.--Jusjih (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Outsider's point of view. If the community is requesting a shorter period of temporary administration, then that seems reasonable. If there is not seen to be a consensus for that community request, then that should be said. Denying the community's request is not appropriate. A steward in this case is solely to act as a crat to follow the community's consensus.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
So a shorter term of 1 to 3 months is a much better compromise than 1 year or not at all. Please reconsider the term, or it will clearly affect how I comment in the next annual stewards' confirmation. Thanks.--Jusjih (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Threatening to mass-oppose steward confirmations is a terrible way to get us to do something. If there is a legitimate case to be made here, please make it. I would recommend listening to Billinghurst above - is there community consensus for the term to be shortened? Or is this your own opinion? And what practical difference would 6 months vs. 12 make; i.e. is the community dissatisfied with the performance of the admin currently? -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I would say "vowing to mass-oppose" as saying "threatening to mass-oppose" may sound like unwillingness to consider criticism, which may discourage someone from supporting in steward confirmation. I am sending a concern about Wong128hk to your private email. When a steward action is questionable from the first place, you stewards should correct it. At the last time, we at Chinese Wikiquote simply voted for or against the candidate, without saying how long, so there has not been community consensus for one year.--Jusjih (talk) 00:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
No, and you repeated the same type of behaviour with that last comment there. I highly recommend that you ask nicely if you want something done; threats won't go a long way. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 00:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
A referendum has started to ask the community how long Wong128hk should have the current temporary term. I have tried to ask nicely as possible, only to see certain (not all) stewards not nice enough. Anyone disagreeing how annual steward confirmation works should start a discussion to try changing it, such as bi-annual confirmation for more senior stewards.--Jusjih (talk) 01:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I have no issues with how the steward confirmations are run. I have issues with the immature and disrespectful way that you are approaching this issue. Thanks for making that request; I'll keep an eye on it, and would be glad to modify the length of temporary adminship granted based on local consensus. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 03:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Stewards' confirmation does include neutral comments, so please reconsider the phrases of "threatening to mass-oppose" and "the immature and disrespectful way".--Jusjih (talk) 01:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

2016 Persian Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Election[edit]

Hello Stewards,

This year, the Persian Wikipedia community is going to hold the Arbitration Committee Election using SecurePoll just like the English Wikipedia. We have taken care of all the arrangements. We just need 2 stewards to volunteer to serve as scrutineers. Please read the instructions for further information. We would prefer if scrutineers do not have much involvement with fawiki in order to help preserve the integrity of the election. The current timetable will have voting between 13 and 26 September. We expect a voter turnout of fewer than 100 users, so the scrutineering will be quite an easy task, and hence we hope the results to be announced on 30 September, if not earlier. Please feel free to contact me or User:Huji if you have any questions. Thanks in advance, 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@MarcoAurelio, Ruslik0: Would you please consider this request? 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@4nn1l2: Thank you for your kind offer, but I have to decline for time reasons. Those dates I have been scheduled several tasks already. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio 17:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: I'm free in that period and can help in that matter. einsbor talk 17:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much Einsbor.
We need a second steward just to make sure that everything goes smoothly. @Ajraddatz: Would you please join Einsbor and help us in that matter? 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't have the time. I've sent a mail to our list though, and hopefully someone else will be able to step up. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I can do this. --MF-W 00:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much, MF-Warburg. I sent an email to you and Einsbor. We make further coordination through email. This thread can be closed and archived now. 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Level of support for new crats on small wikis[edit]

Hi all, see Requests for comment/Bureaucrats on small wikis for a steward-related RfC that I just made. – Ajraddatz (talk) 02:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)