According to IRC user Connel, there is a rogue admin loose on the English Wiktionary and several dangerous actions have been performed (main page deletion, open proxy unblocks etc.). A RfP has been up for several days and the admin has not been desysopped. I don't have any evidence of this right now and am trusting the user's words as a steward is needed *now*. Thanks, Xy -- -Xyrael ~ <xyr> sean(a)silentflame.com | xyrael.net

the steward response of dropping the sysop flag worked to stop it spreading further.

On 8/9/06, Wildrick Steele &lt;wildrick.steele(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Wikimania may have been part of the problem. Also, the request at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_permissions#Removal_of_access seems to have been lost amongst the noise of dozens of other requests, which for some reason, no longer get immediately archived, so it's not easy to see whether or not there are outstanding requests. Perhaps moving urgent requests to a separate section at the top would help in future. There is a (not-very-active) IRC channel at #wikimedia-stewards, but the #wikimedia channel is often a better place to find a steward in an emergency. I don't know whether either of these channels were tried before finding a developer. This might just be a sign that new steward elections are required. Angela. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 8/9/06, Wildrick Steele &lt;wildrick.steele(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Wikimania may have been part of the problem. Also, the request at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_permissions#Removal_of_access seems to have been lost amongst the noise of dozens of other requests, which for some reason, no longer get immediately archived, so it's not easy to see whether or not there are outstanding requests. Perhaps moving urgent requests to a separate section at the top would help in future. There is a (not-very-active) IRC channel at #wikimedia-stewards, but the #wikimedia channel is often a better place to find a steward in an emergency. I don't know whether either of these channels were tried before finding a developer. This might just be a sign that new steward elections are required.

Not all wikis are the same. You can not project the situation of EN to all other wikis. I have just done a de-sysop/de-bureaucrat on the Serbian Wikpedia. There the have (now) 40 sysops and of those 25 are bureaucrat. That is from my POV an irresponsible number of bureaucrats. I do not know how many active user there are. The have 34700 articles.

I have just done a de-sysop/de-bureaucrat on the Serbian Wikpedia. There the have (now) 40 sysops and of those 25 are bureaucrat. That is from my POV an irresponsible number of bureaucrats. I do not know how many active user there are. The have 34700 articles.

I have long been concerned about srwiki, ever since I had one of their admins try to get me deadminned on English for refusing to support the "consensus of admins on srwiki" with regard to a content issue on enwiki.

It disturbs me that srwiki's admins act as judge and jury on content, and especially since (to my untrained eye) they seem to be acting to push a pro-Serbian point of view. Perhaps the situation is not as unsavory as my brief encounter suggests, but I do think that it is unacceptable for ANY language edition of Wikipedia to abrogate NPOV, especially in the interest of nationalistic politics. Kelly

Ray Saintonge schreef: [cut] Not all wikis are the same. You can not project the situation of EN to all other wikis. I have just done a de-sysop/de-bureaucrat on the Serbian Wikpedia. There the have (now) 40 sysops and of those 25 are bureaucrat. That is from my POV an irresponsible number of bureaucrats. I do not know how many active user there are. The have 34700 articles.

Ray Saintonge wrote: a There The fact that we have that many bureaucrats comes from our character as a community: up until recently we've been pretty open and hadn't made a big deal out of administrators and bureaucrats. But now, with what's been happening recently, I think that there's a consensus that we should reduce the number of bureaucrats to a minimum (5 or so) that would carry out the bureaucrat tasks when they are asked. Filip _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 8/12/06, James Hare &lt;messedrocker(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Certian projects tend to promote people to bureaucrat rather than admin. Species for one.

I can imagine that it works well for a lot of wiki's. As I understood also WiktionaryZ is very easy on the behalf of making someone sysop. And other wiki's are as well. It is very like "adminship is no big deal". And maybe it shouldn't. But then deamminship shouldn't be a big deal either i think. Because when someone is adminned easely, the chance that you grab someone who doesn't fit the profile is easier, and deadminning should be easier, so you can fix it quick as well. I've seen little misuse of people with adminship, apart from things like easier blocking etc. But that is something the community can and should solve anyway. You will have the same issues on that behalf when s.o. is after a hard procedure admin. And regarding bureaucrat, that shouldn't be a big deal either maybe. Because a sysop is supposed to be trusted, the bureaucrat is as well. As long as you watch closely what each bc is doing. greetings, Lodewijk 2006/8/12, Filip Maljkovic &lt;dungodung(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: > geni wrote: > >> On 8/12/06, James Hare &lt;messedrocker(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >> >> >>> 40 admins, 25 are bureaucrats? Yikes! I thought having 42 admins with 4 >>> bureaucrats was a lot! >>> >>> >>> >> Certian projects tend to promote people to bureaucrat rather than >> admin. Species for one. >> >> > In Serbian Wikipedia, on the other hand, there was a lax policy > regarding admin/bureau. promotions. Namely, after 1 month of active > contributions, you could become an admin and after 1 more month, a > bureaucrat. That has changed in the past half a year or so. Now, with > regards to some recent situations, I wouldn't be surprised if the policy > becomes ever so restrictive. I, for example, became an admin in 11 days > (fastest in sr: wikipedia). :) But that was more than a year ago... > > Filip

I'd like to see new steward elections very soon, though the Board election may make that difficult.