Talk:Steward requests/Permissions/2010

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2010, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.

http://ro.wikinews.org

What should I do if the Bureaucrat and other administrators have been inactive for several months, years in some cases? I would like to become a bureaucrat to stop the vandals and try to bring new life to the project.//MSClaudiu 12:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You can request a temporary adminship here. Leave a message on village pump for the community and link it in your request. There is no need for ´crat flag to fight against vandalism. --WizardOfOz 13:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
In wikinews were three administrators and a bureaucrat but are no longer active, and I dont have anyone to talk there to became permanent bureaucrat. For me it is clear that they no longer have time to deal with the project but have not named anyone else. Temporary adminstrator is temporary and I want to make it more permanent. Therefore if somebody knows a way of becoming a bureaucrat without asking the comunity (does not exist any more) I would like to know, because I wanna make a new community.//MSClaudiu 13:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
We no longer give out bureaucrat-rights to wikis, just because of this. Ask for temp adminship, and if/when the community grows enough, you can be given permanent adminship. When you get enough users, we can give out bureaucrat. This way, if you decide that you don't want to do anything on this wiki in 5 months, we don't get another user with rights, that don't use them. Laaknor 13:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thank you!MSClaudiu 13:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Lycaon@commonswiki

Not entirely sure where to put this - its not a change in permissions request so the main page isn't really appropriate. In January, (Commons) User:Lycaon had his administrator rights removed by Bastique following his request by email. Bastique stated in the log that it is "subject to reinstatement upon request".

However, Lycaon's actions at the time were "controversial" and the apparent consensus on Commons (see end of thread on AN) is that he should go through RFA if he wants to regain the bit. My question on this: Is recording that on locally Commons sufficient, or would it be better to additionally record that in the rights log here on meta?--Nilfanion 10:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Since Commons has bureaucrats, it's up to them reinstating privileges. And I am convinced that a local bureaucrat can have a feel about community consensus and, if deemed necessary, ask for a new election / reconfirmation poll. --M/ 10:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I wasn't sure if it was up to the bureaucrats or whether stewards could do so (stewards may not be aware of local consensus). Recording anything locally will be fine.--Nilfanion 10:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

uk:User:Gutsul

uk:User:Gutsul (User:Gutsul) has rights of Administrator and crat in uk.wikipedia. But I can't find in Special:Log on Meta and in local log (uk:Special:Log/rights) any log about this.--Prima klasy4na 02:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you really believe that you will find something in the logs that were introduced months after he was elected? — NickK 23:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Any logs and any elections? Where the page with election of uk:User:Gutsul to status Administrator and crat? Where the page with election of uk:User:Yakudza to status crat?--Prima klasy4na 23:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
    The rules in 2004 were very different, he was the first sysop for the new project. And before some point in 2006 all sysops in Ukrainian Wikipedia were bureaucrats as well, these two groups were separated later — NickK 23:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Gutsul got sysop and crat status in mid-2004, but roghts' logs contains the information only since December 2004. That's why there is no Gutsul@ukwiki in Special:Log/rights.--Anatoliy (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  • And how Gutsul got sysop and crat status? This was election? Is any discussion page about this?--Prima klasy4na 19:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
What discussion? Community was very small at that time.--Anatoliy (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Wait...

...does one have to be Steward when requesting permissions for admin/bureacratship for other wikis? I'm confused. Regards | CartoonistHenning 17:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it's for members of the Wikimedia community to request steward actions (rights changes, in this case). However, looking at your current request, stewards will only usually grant bureaucrat permissions after a local election. Without a community, stewards can perform all necessary 'crat actions at SRP (for permissions, like adminship); SRB for bots; and SRUC for account renames.
For temporary adminship, you would probably have to start a discussion on the local noticeboard and wait for a few comments before it is granted. If it's in your favour after a certain period (usually a few days), make the request at SRP#Administrator access. Remember to assess the need; if there isn't much need for local users with advanced permissions, it's often not necessary to request them. Best, PeterSymonds 17:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Copy (Critical)

Note:If its that worse, something has to be done(quickly). I hope you will investigate.In this case, the arbcom is very unlikely to ask you or to do something against it.--Müdigkeit 00:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Ottava Rima@en-wv

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Per Community Review. --mikeu talk 21:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Laaknor 22:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
This was done abusively - this motion passed and supersceded any other motion. Mikeu is also an inactive user who was canvassed into returning. The "vote" to remove access was filled by inactive uses canvassed at Wikipedia Review against Wikiversity:Consensus standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
This "review" was also closed after 4 days, which is far too short for consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to respectfully request that the removal be reconsidered. The proposal for desysopping was set forth and supported very quickly, which is concerning as it seems more the product of a lynch mob than a group of rational adults. The motion I put forth, which was gaining traction at the time the page was closed, is calculated to allow for rational discussion to occur, thereby insuring that the result is the product of logos, not pathos. Geoff Plourde 04:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I would like to second Geoff's request. My concerns are perhaps best explained in this diff while Mikeu is perhaps correct that there were many concerns raised but there was no consensus about what steps to take next, nor do his closing remarks claim that there was any consensus. I understand this is a rather long page, and it developed very rapidly and is perhaps a complete train wreck to wade through but I would like to encourage the closing steward, or another steward if they are busy, re-examine this situation. Thenub314 07:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Since it was filed by a local user after a local discussion, the removal won't be overturned by stewards here; it would have to be done locally by a bureaucrat on Wikiversity. This is a discussion you should finish over there. Best, PeterSymonds 10:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
The filing process must be upheld, which it was not in this case and multiple Stewards said to point it out here as local users cannot close such discussions but only point to them. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Stewards do not "close" anything as far as I am aware. They carry out the wishes of the community. --Herby talk thyme 13:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
They decide consensus and see if it is really the wishes of the community. Otherwise, I could point to a random thread and claim it says whatever about you, Herbythyme. Furthermore, the filing process says that there has to be a justification, which was not put up here. The kicker? Many Stewards have already pointed out Laaknor's long term negative history with me and said it is a good matter to bring up during Laaknor's review. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Then get one of these many stewards to sort it out. --Herby talk thyme 14:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Which is what this is part of. I can tell you that one of the people saying to go this way was Kylu, and I will reveal that as Kylu is recused on matters regarding me and thus wont be possibly involved in the matter. They required a public statement to handle the matter privately (i.e. something to point to). Ottava Rima (talk) 14:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
The matter is under discussion locally, with opinions welcome of course :-). --SB_Johnny|talk|books 17:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Discussions of Steward abuse and ignoring process is not a Wikiversity matter but a Meta matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

(remove indent) There is no steward abuse here. Stewards are not expected to investigate every detail. The desysopping discussion on Wikiversity was closed by an uninvolved local 'crat and brought here for action, per Wikiversity policy. The 'crat pointed to the discussion. The dispute over propriety is mostly over the length of time the discussion was open, which is specified in policy as 7 days. The Community Review was opened at 21:57, 21 November 2010, a proposal to desysop was added at 09:42, 22 November 2010, and the close of the proposal was at 21:34, 26 November 2010. Precedent is clear, however, that stewards take the appearance of a desysopping request at face value and are not required to investigate every detail or nuance of policy. wWhere there are local bureaucrats, the remedy for an error would be restoration of the bit by a local 'crat, either ad-hoc or based on discussion and local consensus. There are five Wikiversity bureaucrats, of whom two supported desysopping in the discussion, with the close by the third who came here. There are two more crats, at least one of whom could be reached. There is no reasonable doubt about the propriety of the conclusion, however; the closing 'crat apparently concluded that the outcome was already very clear and that a faster close would be less disruptive; however, disruption has continued and the user is currently short-blocked for incivility. (Disclosure: I am short-blocked myself as part of that action, it's under discussion, being recent.) My block was lifted as in error, block of Ottava was confirmed, expires later today. --Abd 18:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Ottava brought a desysop request here, earlier this year, that was in clear violation of Wikiversity policy, and it was granted because of Ottava's claims were accepted on the face, and without investigation, and, while Laaknor's comment was incorrect, no appeal was made here because the remedy, if it were to be pursued, was clearly with local 'crats. That Ottava would attack Laaknor for a routine action is the kind of behavior that led to Ottava's desysop. --Abd 05:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Mentorship gave me the right to remove your ops at any time for any reason. That was he contract. The Stewards are required to see if there was consensus and if the process was correct. They are also supposed to demand the form is filled out correctly, which it clearly was not. Enough stewards felt that there was a problem that I was told to go this route. Abd, your bias is clouding any objective ability to determine what is right or wrong. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
By the way, my "kind of behavior" was you using Wikipedia Review to canvass for votes, and you only got 4 regulars to vote on your side and 2 were the ones filing! That means you only convinced 2 regulars whereas 5 regulars sided against you. Odd how that works out. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Ottava makes many strong statements that have no support in fact. I will provide diffs or page refs to support any statement of mine, on request from any steward/meta admin, or perhaps other users. Otherwise, it's multiplying words for no purpose. Charges of my alleged misbehavior are not relevant here. --Abd 18:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Please don't turn this page into a battleground. Desysopping policies should be held locally; stewards will only act once a change of local policy has been implemented. This simply isn't the place for your debate. PeterSymonds 18:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.