Talk:Steward requests/Permissions/2007

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is for discussions related to the Steward requests/Permissions/2007 page.

  Please remember to:

Wikimedia Community Logo.svg
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2007, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.

Question about procedure for giving limited access rights to a user account on en

We currently have a discussion about giving admin group rights to a user account on en: at en:Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/ProtectionBot. I've proposed to limit the access rights for this account to "registered"+"protect". Could a steward please confirm at en:Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/ProtectionBot#Access rights for protection bot that this could be implemented by a steward, if there is consensus to do so? --Ligulem 12:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. MaxSem 13:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

RfA on an inactive Wiki

Is it allowed to notify users who don't edit on a particular wiki about your Requests for adminship if there are no other active users on that wiki. To clarify, on Sanskrit Wikipedia, (sawiki) there is only one other active user sa:User:सहाय (Sahay) who is not very familiar Wiki-policies anyway. If I apply a request of adminship, the maximum of supports/votes I will get is 1 unless I invite others from enwiki. Regards DaGizza 23:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

One vote is fine if that is the total community. Inviting users from another wiki is not fine, though, since that overrides local opinion. —{admin} Pathoschild 23:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
What happens if that user becomes inactive soon? DaGizza 23:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
You will be given administrator access for a few months, with the possibility of extending it if there is still no community or confirming it if there is. —{admin} Pathoschild 23:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I have one more question. Is it alright if I invite former active users on sawiki, who are still active on other languages. There are two inactive admins on sawiki at the moment who I think are relatively active in other areas. Both of their last edits to sawiki were about 6 months ago. DaGizza 23:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
You are certainly free to invite other users to help out, including formerly active users. Whether you'd get permanent administrator access or temporary access would depend on the steward's judgement of the particular situation. —{admin} Pathoschild 00:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I know that, the Steward will judge whether consensus has been determined. They are effectively a super-bureaucrat on every wiki since they can promote any user to anything, except they can't change usernames :-) Once again, thanks for replying. DaGizza 01:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Stewards can change user names too. You're welcome. :) —{admin} Pathoschild 01:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oversight Access

En.wikibooks has been discussing oversight access, and several members of the community would like to move forward on votes for oversight for a few of our most senior members. How do we go about this process? how many votes would we need? is this like checkuser elections (need at least 25 votes each for two users)? --Whiteknight 15:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

How pressing is the need for oversight? How big is that ocmmunity (~100, ~1000? ) drini 15:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
As oversight requires a great deal of responsibility and sensitivity, I recommend that the 25 - 30 apply here as well. If the project doesn't have oversight users, it's not a big issue. Stewards are now constantly available. Having just a couple oversighters who are rarely available may also cause a delay if they cannot be found, because the stewards will be forced to make the decision to determine whether or not to perform the oversight or wait until the oversighter is available. Bastique 15:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Note, Jon Harald Søby had also brought the same matter up on the foundation list, with much the same conclusion. Bastique 16:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I would say that the need is not immediate (the worst decisions are made for immediate need). However there are plenty of instances of sensitive information that should be removed (especially addresses, phone numbers, email addresses) of people who have added that information to books only to find that such information should not be available publicly. Books (especially older books) tend to develop large pages, and page groups where the "authors" list this kind of information about themselves. Some peices of information have been added by authors who assumed the information was required for copyright issues (some books are preparing for publishing, etc). Many of these things have accumulated over the years, and it would be quite a task for a steward to come in and have to deal with it all. New additions of such information is less common, and we are developing policies to try and avoid it. --Whiteknight 19:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Have you considered Special:Emailuser or mailing to to remove those(to handle things discreetly)? or hitting IRC? drini 19:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
What do you think about the mailing list posts? See [1] and grep for "Oversight rights". Also what do you think of [2] and [3] ? drini 20:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
There's a "Requests for oversight" at enwiki. Perhaps other projects could use something similar? ~Kylu (u|t) 03:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Right to defense

In the procedures for revoking permissions, the accused administrator or bureaucrat must have the right to defend himself against the accusations. No procedure in which this right has not been respected should be accepted. It a steward has to take a decision, he must not only be presented with the allegations, but must also have the information which enables him to assess that the right to defense has been respected. Without this no just decision can be taken. The right to defense is accepted in most countries as a basic right. It should be the same for Wikipedia. Otherwise, you potentially open the door for showtrials. It requires just a phrase to indicate this right and it does not change the wording of the policy. But it is necessary and must pe clearly stated. It cannot be implicit.

Afil 16:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, involved users can always appeal and state their case. Nothing is irreversible. No real damage is done. drini [es:] [commons:] 16:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Any action which injustly casts an unfavorable light on somebody is harmful. The revocation is reversible, the slander is not. Anyway it is a principle of law which has to be respected. Afil 16:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
This is all very well but what has it to do with RFP or stewards? We are not arbiters; a permissions debate should only appear on RFP in summary after the community has made a decision. — Dan | talk 21:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


It happend with me second time that my request is under process and it had been archived.

all requests should be archived when they are rejected. Wisesabre 13:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikis with bureaucrats

Could any of the programmers make a list of which wikis have bureacurats? drini [es:] [commons:] 14:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Cornish Wiktionary

Can a steward lock this wiki?? It's virtually inactive, and a constant target for spambots recently. I've already had to use cascading protection to prevent pages from being created! --WiganRunnerEu 11:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Stewards can't lock wikis anymore, talk to the devs. drini [es:] [commons:] 15:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Import access

How do I enable this on my own wiki - similar to what Wikibooks do?? --WiganRunnerEu 11:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Why you ask on Request for permissions?
When it's a Wikimedia Wiki, ask on Bugzilla, if it's your on wiki, read Mw:Manual:$wgImportSources.
-- MichaelFrey 13:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Inactive Wikipedias/Wiktionaries/Wikibooks etc.

There are way too many projects which are totally inactive, and the only edits are the spambots and occasionally someone blanking these rubbish articles. Or a bot adding interwiki links, if there were a few articles already. If we don't want to disable these wikis completely, why not block anonymous contributions completely there, and keep them open for logged in users? They all have account creation locked with that Captcha feature, but that is totally useless if bots can do their work without logging in. Some of these wikis had their spam online for years, e.g. the Khmer wiktionary. Or at least we'd need emergency admins on these wikis, who can clean up occasionally. Ahoerstemeier 16:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Belarusian admins

Why was the Belarusian request for admins removed? The voting has ended already. We in Bel Wiki have talked about all the things we want. And no some almost unknown people came and blocked our request. Is it the right thing?.. Mienski 06:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Elections were carried out with infringement of procedure and constant change of rules for election in admins of not through passage candidate Yaroslav Zolotaryov. --Morpheios Melas 09:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Support. It were right elections. If some people not from our wiki make discussions in the request, we are not guilty. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 07:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I wonder what actual goals are pursued here

I resent this tendentious talk about "infringements and changes of rules". I wonder what actual goals are pursued here?!

As one of the active contributors to the current w:be:, I can say that our project was pushed out of Incubator without any real prior warning, with no time to organise ourselves for the real-site work, and we had immediately to put some defense against the vandals mutilating our content. Hence the three temporary admins, against whom there were no contention, voted and confirmed by JHS in the morning.

The elections for the permanent adminships began to be organised, with people of the project showing up. People with great deals of contribution to the project asked (I, among others) Yaroslav Zolotaryov to continue his work as one of the admins of our WP, continuing his Incubator's fine work with us.

Bit later in the day, some people with no real contribution to the project, some of them complet strangers to everybody here, practically none of them knowing the Belarusian language, started to show up, proceeding straight to the community page, voting against the actual contributors, putting one another for adminship, and picking verbal fights with Yaroslav Zolotaryov.

In fact, I know quite well that these people were "meat-puppeted" by one of them from the Russian Wikipedia. First, there was some hope this farce would end, but no, it was getting worse. We were looking forward to a regular flash-mob of the anti-Zolotaryov kind.

The WP isn't experiment in democracy or anarchy, so the temp. admins had to take action.

I personally blocked the community page. Subsequently, I and Yaroslav Zolotaryov consulted on Meta with steward, and the actual threshold for voting was actually suggested by steward. According to this, all random people had no right to run for adminship, nor had they right to vote for admins. Then we published this notice, unlocked the page, and stroke out the irregular votes and candidates. There was no real contention on community because of that, somehow.

Possibly, all this was somewhat chaotic but by no means "infringing" or "back-changing". And it was caused not by us, the community of the Belarusian Wikipedia, but partially provoked by the disorganised move from the Incubator.

The community of the Belarusian Wikipedia has no problem with Yaroslav Zolotaryov. And let other users not bring their personal problems with him to us. Yury Tarasievich 10:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Special:logs/rights regarding other wikis

When someone uses Meta to change rights for a user, this change is not logged to the wiki the user belongs to. Is it possible to enable such logging? As an alternative, a way to filter out only the relevant entries from the logs on meta would be nice. ZorroIII 15:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Bug the devs! MaxSem 15:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Someone already have, it appears.... bugzilla:4055. ZorroIII 15:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Article policy in general

I want to cleanup the Zulu Wikipedia a little bit (temp sysop request follows). There is much vandalism stuff to delete and I want to create a Spambot protection page (as I did in other wikis as well). But the question is: I don't know if "articles" like zu:IsiSwidishi should be kept or deleted. They don't contain any content except the lemma and an empty section "Umlando" which means "history" and a picture. They were "spammed" by an IP into most smaller wikipediae in summer last year. I would not even call these pages a substub. The community there seems to be inactive at all, I didn't find any contribution except interwiki stuff, vandalism and vandalism reverts for a long time. There is no local sysop, so I don't know whom to ask because of the articles... I tagged some of the empty pages (zu:2006 and such stuff]]) with delete templates, but now I see that most of the 92 articles of this wiki are of that kind... What shall we do? --Thogo (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That question has really no answer. For the beginning, most wikis are like this. And an article that you call substub by using another wikis standart, maybe a initiation page for the rookie wiki. So we never know. It is upto community really. And if there is no community I would leave it like that. Thats my opinion. --Dbl2010 23:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok. I'll do it this way. (But I delete pages written in English of course.) Thank you. :o) --Thogo (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


I want to import pages at Tetum Wikipedia. Is RfP the right place to ask? --MF-Warburg 17:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, where do You want to import from? If it is from another wiki, You should place a request for activating the transwiki (Special:Import - from... to...) at bugzilla: (note:You have to be sysop to use Special:Import), if it is from Your computer with help of a bot, maybe (to avoid filling up the recent changes) You should request for bot status if Your community is in favor with that. Best regards --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 13:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thank you, it's from another wikipedia. --MF-Warburg 20:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


I hope this is the right place for this :-) I've made 5 days ago a sysop request at the Incubator, because there is still much to do (600 pages to delete!), but there is no active admin. There is a text: "Nominations usually remain for seven days, for votes and comments. Admin status will be granted by a majority of at least 75% and a minimum of 4 support votes.", but there isn't any reaction. What should I do? SPQRobin 20:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

First: wait until the seven days are over. When it is so, and nobody voted, ask an incubator bureaucrat for adminship. On RfP only sysop rights for wikis without bureaucrats are given. Best regards MF-Warburg(de) 13:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks SPQRobin 14:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Wictionary tk and wikibooks tk

Please note that this user is banned from tr.wp for being a sockpuppeteer (recently) and from en.wp for being a meatpuppet (a year ago).--Vito Genovese 01:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Please read user Devrimdpt'smassage called About Turkish Wikipedia, on Jimbo Wales's discussion page, and ask White Cat this dispute. Because he/she can translate this page. My dispute didin't solution but he and his friend banned me. Three sysop and community said He isn't sockpuppet or meatpuppet. And alot of user in Türkish Wikipedia complained Vito Genovese alot of time, but Bureaucrat Dbl2010 isn't doing anything. All problem is that: He doesn't like me.
And here you can read a steward's opinion abuot my en:Wiki account.
Also, thees are difrent projects and difrent languages
Best regards--Erdemsenol 12:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

is Special:Makesysop page malfunctioning?

I happen to get back a completely blank page whenever I try to edit a user's rights with Special:Makesysop. Does this happen to you too, or is it just a problem of mine? --Paginazero - Ø 09:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Watever it is... it was. Now it's ok. --Paginazero - Ø 07:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Username changes

I extracted the requests for username changes from this page, since it is no permission that is requested. You might want to watch it: Requests for username changes. I also put the not yet done requests from here to there. I hope that's ok for you all. If you want to have a kind of template with a direct link to the local Renameuser special page, just tell me that. Greetings, --Thogo (talk) 00:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Tok Pisin temp sysop (Matt Andrews)

I guess I did a "Wiki no-no" when I added my support to Matt Andrews' request for temp sysop permission.  But I sincerely hope that he'll be granted that permission. The two of us have had reasonably long discussions on the way to go on revitalizing the Tok Pisin Wikis.  I know he'll be of great help to me and the Wiki community in general by helping to make the two Wikis highly useful technically, and as a TPI article author/editor. (KKS temp sysop, expires October 9th:) K. Kellogg-Smith 16:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Issue at tpi.wp

As I explained in detal to the requestor, I blocked the robot "SieBot" for 30 days because of its excessive, daily (and I must say, mindless) entries to articles that are only one-, two-, or three-line stubs that do not meet Wikipedia standards as articles.  I've been working intensively and extensively to bring the Tok Pisin Wikipedia and Wiktionary up to acceptable professional standards. At this stage of my work "SieBot"'s endless automatic entries interfere with what I'm trying to accomplish with the Tok Pisin Wikipedia and Wiktionary. The 30-day block I imposed will give me time to get more of my work done without bot interference.

I understand the requestor's objections, but respectfully ask that my bot blocking continue to be continued until I have completed my work on the TPI Wikipedia and Wiktionary project.

I'm writing progress reports on the work I've been doing on this project.  Those who are interested can review my progress reports; the reports to date can be reviewed here. The work I did last week while on vacation in Canada, and the work for this week will be added as a progress report update on Saturday.

K. Kellogg-Smith 19:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative community effort aimed at producing a free high-quality encyclopedia, where:
  • Collaborative means that multiple users work on it at the same time. Users include bots, which serve a purpose of performing tasks otherwise tedious and unbecoming to humans. Your practice of "give me time to get more of my work done" is very unwiki - if we locked ourselves, each one with a part of of the Wikipedia, no work would be done in centuries.
  • High-quality covers accessibility and flexible multilingualism - do interwiki links ring a bell? People love to surf back and forth between languages, exploring new notions and relations between them.
Now the truth is, were the bot flagged as one, you wouldn't even notice its transparent work on recent changes (only in page histories) - is the oldest and probably most reliable pywikipedia bot. Kudos to you for your effort, but let others help as well, by which I voice my support to flagging interwiki bots on tpi.wp. Regards, Миша13 19:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

(1)  Approval of a "bot" to operate on a Wikipedia is at the descretion of the sysop/administrator. I am the sysop/administrator for the TPI Wikipedia and Wiktionary, and I do not want language-linking bots to interfere with the work I'm doing on those two Wikis.

(2)  Sorry. A "collaborative" effort is not what you seem to think it is.  Collaboration is a process in which individuals or groups cooperate in their work to achieve a common goal or objective.  "Bots" are software products, not individuals.  As a professional software developer, I consider "bots" to be mindless, and of the same genre as spamming software.  They are incapable of interacting with, cooperating with, or be modified by Wikipedia authors, editors, and users.  Therefore, I certainly do not consider "bots" to be a part of the active Wikipedia community.  And more pointedly to your argument, if language-linking "bots" were as 'helpful' in the development of the TPI Wikis as you say they are, then I wouldn't have to block them, would I.

(3) The multilingualism of the TPI Wikis isn't the kind of universal multilingualism that language-linking "bots" provide.  Tok Pisin is a spoken pigin English, both a primary and secondary language used by the more than a million illiterate and semi-literate indigineous peoples of Melanesia and surrounding regions.  These are tribal people with rather limited contact with the outside world.  What you are unconsciously doing in your statement that "people love to surf back and forth between languages" is applying your European standards to the peoples of a region of over 750 different tribal languages, and where Tok Pisin is the common denominator for language communication.  I suggest you read the Papua New Guinea/Melanesia related articles in Wikipedia to get a better idea of what PNG is really like.  As a starter, I suggest you read the article on the town of Tabubil, and go on from there.  And you might also take a moment to read my progress reports by going to the link I provided above.

(4) I say again, my decision to block "SieBot" is based on what I consider to be an excessive number of insertions that show up as recent insertions, a page that I use repeatedly to check for spam, vandalism, and other changes that affect the quality of the TPI Wikipedia. I have a little less than 60 days to bring the TPI Wikis up to Wikipedia standards, and I would appreciate it if my decision to block "SieBot" is left standing until after my term expires.

Regards, K. Kellogg-Smith 15:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC) (TPI sysop/administrator)
A few observations:
  • Tok Pisin is a spoken pigin English, both a primary and secondary language used by the more than a million illiterate and semi-literate indigineous peoples of Melanesia and surrounding regions. These are tribal people with rather limited contact with the outside world. This statement is incorrect and misleading in several ways. Tok Pisin is not a pidgin, it is a creole, and has been for more than a century. It is both a written and a spoken language. It is used right across Papua New Guinean society, from the highly educated elites to the urban middle class (who do not at all have "very limited contact with the outside world") to remote village people - not just "illiterate and semi-literate" segments of the population. It is not spoken in "Melanesia and surrounding regions"; it is only spoken in Papua New Guinea (and among the small Papua New Guinean diaspora).
  • The above errors are not necessarily a problem in and of themselves; but they illustrate a couple of key points: firstly, K. Kellogg-Smith is a beginner at Tok Pisin - he admits he only started to attempt to learn the language a couple of months ago - and it is clear that his comprehension of written Tok Pisin and his writing are still very much at the beginner level (I am in a position to assess that, as I set and mark examinations in Tok Pisin proficiency for diplomats, aid workers, etc, I have written and directed Tok Pisin radio and television productions for national broadcast, and have been fluent in Tok Pisin for 17 years). Secondly, K. Kellogg-Smith has clearly either never been to Papua New Guinea or has extraordinary limited experience of it.
  • Accordingly I believe K. Kellogg-Smith's policy approach to be without good foundation. I do not believe there is any need for a special approach to the Tok Pisin Wikipedia; no need for multi-lingualism, no need for arbitrarily limiting the geographic range of articles, no need to restrict interwiki links, etc. I believe that the Tok Pisin Wiktionary should be bilingual, having English and Tok Pisin definitions for Tok Pisin words, but again no need for other arbitrary restrictions that work against the spirit of the Wikimedia community.
  • Personally I consider that K. Kellogg-Smith's current efforts to be the opposite of "bringing the TPI Wikis up to Wikipedia standards", and I don't know how he can claim his current efforts to be so. He is arbitrarily inventing restrictive policies (and falsely attributing them to the Wikimedia Foundation) and taking an extremely autocratic approach. Banning IP addresses for no reason, banning bots, deleting geographic stubs, reverting good edits with no explanation, and generally refusing to allow anything to take place which does not conform to his unilaterally determined vision, are to my mind behaviours which do not belong on Wikimedia projects.
Wantok 02:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Chicken and egg

I started working a bit on the Swahili wiktionary a year+ ago. I live in Nairobi, my family speaks Swahili (and Luhya, Kalenjin, Kinyarwanda ;-), I hear and use it every day. I requested sysop status since there was none, and was given (IIRC) 6 months.

When it expired I requested again, was denied, saying I should get the approval of the "local community". Meaning, um, me.

Asked for temporary permission, was given a week or two, supposedly to clean something up? Not sure. But apparently, you can't be (semi-)permanent unless there is a local community.

And there will not be a local community unless there is a sysop.

See the problem? Telling me to try to "build a local community" first won't work! I have lots of contacts at KU and others that would be interested, but they see the English language interface and "know" it just isn't a serious Kamusi project. I could ask for temporary status and race to get the whole UI translated in a week or two (the sw.wikt would be a great help), but it just isn't possible to maintain the project and build a local community in that manner.

Jako Olivier faces the same problem with Sesotho; and he wants to work on Northern Sotho and Tswana; I want to work on Kinyarwanda (I spend time in Rwanda on a regular basis), and one or the other of us needs to work on Xitsonga to support two very serious contributors. We need some kind of semi-permanent status, asking again every few weeks multiplied by several wikts will not work?

What do you think? Getting a wikt going essentially requires one individual to make it happen; both Jako and I are willing and able, but can't figure out how within the existing process. Robert Ullmann 15:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

We can't grant permanent adminship, for the reasons you cited yourself, but neither would we ask that you accomplish a timeconsuming task, while managing your off-wiki life at the same time, in an unreasonably short period of time. You can and should make a request for a longer period of time with access to the tools. Perhaps a month, or even two? Try to come up with a reasonable period of time and make a request in the main page. I'm sure we will be able to come up with something that works while within the boundaries of Foundation policy. Cheers, Redux 23:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Redux. This is certainly a large enough spoken language and you should have not too much problem eventually establishing a community. :) I'd say as many as three months. Cary Bass demandez 20:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
@Robert Ullmann: For maintenance etc, you're right I think. But for the problem of the interface, we've got a simple and much better solution: Betawiki. If you translate the interface on the Swahili wiktionary only, you can see it only there. If you translate on Betawiki, you can see it on every MediaWiki wiki! And, you can even translate the namespaces and the special pages there. You mentioned other people with the same problem, please tell them about Betawiki. SPQRobin 08:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I was working on it, including discussions at Kenyatta University, for ~6 months. There are a lot of native speakers of Swahili, but only a tiny percentage have the kind of on-line access to do this. (Are you going to play on the in a cyber-caf, when an hour on-line costs you half a day's income? And that's in Nairobi at Ksh 1/minute or in Dar; in the districts ten minutes can wipe out your income for the day. I've been toying with the idea of paying, say KU students, to do some editing.) We will be extraordinarily lucky to have a community in a year. (Factoid: People in the US have an average of 65KB/sec of net bandwidth, people in Rwanda have 0.25KB/sec ;-) I don't have any trouble with translating the I/F; the sw.wp has been done. It is the on-going stuff where working on a wikt without an active sysop is painful. If I/we can just get back to 6 months at a time? Robert Ullmann 13:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry if i am sounding and acting frustrated. Let me give you a bit more background: I am planning on meeting with the ICT minister in Kigali Rwanda in the next few weeks (not yet scheduled); and probably/possibly with Paul Kagame; the topic is building an open Kinyarwanda dictionary with translations to English, French and Swahili. Kagame is bidding to have Rwanda join the Commonwealth of Nations as well as improving the integration with the EAC. This is an important part, and also part of Rwanda's ICT development plan. This can clearly be built on the rw.wikt (and perhaps the sw.wikt), but I can't tell them that the wikts will be managed. If you give me three weeks or months, I still can't commit to any continuity, even if I routinely re-apply. Can you promise that that there will be some continuous sysop dedicated to the project? Can I routinely re-apply before it expires? Will you always approve it unless someone else is already approved and active? You see the problem: they will want to see trustworthy, continuous, 24x7 if possible, administration. (Never mind that I want to see that too ;-) I can always try, and I will; but it is (as I said) frustrating to be attempting serious work and not have any assurance. (I suppose what I will do is add the request, copy it to my user page, and then just routinely paste it back in every time; seems like process abuse, but as that is the process?) Robert Ullmann 14:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for changing the policy

The policy to become a sysop says "Please only make requests here after gaining the approval of your local community."

I would like to propose for adding the following:

"When a new site is created, users who are a test-administrator on Incubator may become a sysop at the new site. An Incubator administrator has to confirm that it is a good user and the user has to confirm he want to become a sysop at the new site."

What do you think? SPQRobin 20:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but this adminship, as I perceive it, would need to be temporary. Maybe for a given period of time (a month, or 2 after the project goes online) or maybe even until the first Administrator chosen locally gets appointed (if it is the same person, than the temporary adminship is converted into permanent adminship). Redux 21:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Redux, no permanent administrator access should be given without community election. We can give temporary access using the usual procedure on this page, and renew it (assuming no problems) until the community holds sufficient elections. That doesn't need any change in the instructions on this page. —{admin} Pathoschild 07:13:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)