It was my understanding that they could... or am I wrong?
--Ryan
From: geni geniice@gmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Re: Re: Desysopping inactive admins
On 9/19/05, Ryan W. (Merovingian) bigwiki@earthling.net wrote:
As Phrozaic pointed out, inactive admins are theoretically much less of targets for account hijackers. Nevertheless, I am in full support of more bureaucrats.
--Ryan
since when could they de-admin people?
-- geni
On 19/09/05, Ryan W. (Merovingian) bigwiki@earthling.net wrote:
It was my understanding that they could... or am I wrong?
IIRC bureaucrats can give admin rights, but only... thingy... next level up... can *remove* them.
On 9/19/05, Ryan W. (Merovingian) bigwiki@earthling.net wrote:
It was my understanding that they could... or am I wrong?
--Ryan
Removeing is stewards only. There is a case for more stewards but I don't think there will be another election for a while.
On 9/19/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/19/05, Ryan W. (Merovingian) bigwiki@earthling.net wrote:
It was my understanding that they could... or am I wrong?
--Ryan
Removeing is stewards only. There is a case for more stewards but I don't think there will be another election for a while.
Either add more stewards, or move this permission one level down.
Without any REAL knowledge of any other differences between the roles, I prefer the latter. However my opinion is, as stated, pretty uninformed.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Michael Turley wrote:
On 9/19/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/19/05, Ryan W. (Merovingian) bigwiki@earthling.net wrote:
It was my understanding that they could... or am I wrong?
Removeing is stewards only. There is a case for more stewards but I don't think there will be another election for a while.
Either add more stewards, or move this permission one level down.
Stewards are global. They can set arbitrary permissions on anyone in any Wikimedia wiki. There's a reason that this is not given to every random bureaucrat. :-)
Without any REAL knowledge of any other differences between the roles, I prefer the latter. However my opinion is, as stated, pretty uninformed.
I see no reason for there to be a greater prevalence of stewards (we just had a large-ish selection of new ones); the need to remove people's sysop or bureaucrat flags is very rare.
Yours sincerely, - -- James D. Forrester Wikimedia : [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] E-Mail : james@jdforrester.org IM (MSN) : jamesdforrester@hotmail.com
On 9/19/05, James D. Forrester james@jdforrester.org wrote:
I see no reason for there to be a greater prevalence of stewards (we just had a large-ish selection of new ones); the need to remove people's sysop or bureaucrat flags is very rare.
Yours sincerely,
James D. Forrester
I took far to long for the donation notices to removed from wikis with less active admins (It doesn't help that a lot of admins don't really know thier way arounf the mediawiki namespace but no matter).
On 9/19/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I took far to long for the donation notices to removed from wikis with less active admins (It doesn't help that a lot of admins don't really know thier way arounf the mediawiki namespace but no matter).
That isn't a result of not having enough stewards. Stewards have the ability to give any user adminship on other wikis, but they do not have that access level themselves, so can not just edit site notices. The reason these stayed up too long was that no one noticed and asked for adminship in order to remove them. Stewards should not be confused with global admins (which don't exist on Wikimedia).
Angela.
I see no reason for there to be a greater prevalence of stewards (we just had a large-ish selection of new ones); the need to remove people's sysop or bureaucrat flags is very rare.
And in the case of a rogue admin emergency, such as something that recently happened on EN Wiktionary, if no stewards are alive, a few developers also have the power to do this.
Due to a widespread confusion regarding the application of IAR as a policy, rather than simply an informal guideline, I propose deleting the third leg of the so-called policy trifecta.
NPOV was always the prime directive, and some tussles we came up with the word "civility"(*) to shape a good secondary. The third leg, although necessary to satisfy the requirements of standing furniture and designated "trifecta" was never quite as clear. Perhaps we should vote if there is actually a third, and if so what that should be. Drawing from a list of actual policy, of course and not just this "flimsy whimsy trumps policy history" nonsense.
SV * http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-October/007069.html
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On the contrary. IAR is crucial to Wikipedia, because it allows us a "common sense override". This means that we can always act in the best interests of the encyclopaedia, even when it is not directly allowed in policy.
IAR is a vital part of the "Wiki" part of Wikipedia, just as NPOV is vital to the "pedia".
Sam
It's never been a very widely applicable rule, but it's not our custom to delete policy pages with which we happen to disagree. Just pop something at the top to say it isn't an official policy or guideline, if you disagree with it.
On 9/19/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
It's never been a very widely applicable rule, but it's not our custom to delete policy pages with which we happen to disagree. Just pop something at the top to say it isn't an official policy or guideline, if you disagree with it.
Although some of are likely to ignore this.
Does IAR not have significant consensus as a guideline?
On 9/19/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
It's never been a very widely applicable rule, but it's not our custom to delete policy pages with which we happen to disagree. Just pop something at the top to say it isn't an official policy or guideline, if you disagree with it.
On 9/19/05, Phroziac phroziac@gmail.com wrote:
Does IAR not have significant consensus as a guideline?
IAR in itself isn't a big deal, each individual instance of IAR is different and should be justifiable on its own. It's not enough to say "look, I was ignoring all rules, it's in [[WP:IAR]]." You have to be doing something so manifestly good for the project that there will be little significant objection.
steve v wrote:
Due to a widespread confusion regarding the application of IAR as a policy, rather than simply an informal guideline, I propose deleting the third leg of the so-called policy trifecta.
Let's not. Sometimes it's the only thing that protects us from anal lawyers.
Ec
On 9/19/05, steve v vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
Due to a widespread confusion regarding the application of IAR as a policy, rather than simply an informal guideline, I propose deleting the third leg of the so-called policy trifecta.
I say, what is it that you people have against the Trifecta? First you go after WP:DICK (moved it to meta, and then tried to delete it from there), and then you go after IAR. Are you going to go after WP:NPOV next?
Sigh.
Kelly