Talk:Steward requests/Permissions/2011

Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2011, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.

Discussion moved here from [1]. --Abd 16:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

A [3] community vote has determined that he is to be removed. User is a temporary Custodian appointed against community consensus. After a period of abusing ops and bullying, he was put up to be desysopped. His mentor has not responded to any of the concerns from the community so the community deemed it necessary to intervene. 7 blatant supports to desysop (6 in main section, 1 in bottom section - Bduke), 1 says the original giving of ops was "strange", and no opposition. Discussion posted in many places, multiple people were asked to comment, but the low activity of the community makes it certain that all who would respond have responded. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

please wait at least 2 weeks for a complete community response. Thank you.--Nick1915 - ^{all you want} 16:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Nick1915. Wikiversity has policy on this, see Problems with Custodians; the process requires a 'crat close and request here. There are active 'crats, Jtneill and SB Johnny, both of whom have my permission to request desysop immediately if they think it necessary. The process is not broken. --Abd 16:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

thank you Abd, so this request is closed due to local policy. Thanks--Nick1915 - ^{all you want} 17:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

That policy is for full Custodians, not temporary Custodians. This shows that Stewards were willing to desysop after 3 days when the whole process was called into question via unanimous vote. Putting up a double standard is not the place of Stewards, especially when it is unanimous among a community. Seeing as how confirmation is around the corner, this is an egregious abuse of authority Nick1915, especially when Drini made it clear that filing on Friday was enough time to pass. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no double-standard. The previous request you point to was filed by a local bureaucrat, as described by the local policy. If you feel that local community policy or bureaucrats are unfair, you should attempt to resolve those issues locally. —Pathoschild 22:49:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

No. Reread. The procedure says: 1. "you must gain consensus on the local wiki first." which was not followed for the previous one and 2. "a trusted person" not a "Bureaucrat". If you are wanting to continue as a Steward you must follow Steward procedures instead of making up your own. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The en-Wikiversity de-custodianship policy states as follows: "Loss of custodianship involves a process that establishes community consensus. [...] Wikiversity bureaucrats will review the discussion. If a bureaucrat decides that there is good reason for removal of a custodianship, that bureaucrat will go to the meta-wiki and request that stewards review the community discussion. If a steward agrees that the Wikiversity community has reached consensus about a problem custodian, then that steward can terminate the custodianship of the custodian."

This policy explicitly places responsibility for such decisions in the hands of the local community bureaucrats. Please ask the local bureaucrats to review the discussion, as required by the policy. If you feel this is unfair or insufficient, you may propose changes to the policy. —Pathoschild 23:27:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

He is not a Custodian. He is a Probationary custodian. That was explained multiple times above. He was not voted in by the community, which that recall proceedings assume. Furthermore, as multiple Stewards have pointed out, stewards cannot "agree that the Wikiversity community has reached consensus". They can only see if someone trusted from the community posts that there is consensus, which the unanimous decision so far shows. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I've closed this request following the local policy literally, not misusing any position/power.This is the only policy about custodian I've seen, and it's pretty clear, so, in the first instance, I cannot decide if community consensus is reached or not, but a local 'crat should review and make a request here. Ottava Rima, as I see, is not a local 'crat and the voting/discussion is open from less than a week and it has not been checked by any 'crat. So, yes, in this case I can point out that this request is not valid--Nick1915 - ^{all you want} 11:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This is factually incorrect: "the local policy literally" He is a probationary custodian, not a Custodian. He has his own separate page. Furthermore, Meta policy does not require a local crat. Drini and othes in chat said to file it on Friday. Are you really going to contradict other Stewards while showing your inability to read the appropriate policy, ignore unanimous consensus, and do something Stewards are not allowed to do by making false claims about policies? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Any other steward can revert my "inappropriate" action whenever. Anyway your tone is offensive here and in my talkpage. Please remember that meta is not the right place for exporting local drama or for threating people. This request is already closed, unless a wikiversity 'crat asks a removing or another steward wants to do something else. If you consider my action dishonest, please open a request here. Thanks--Nick1915 - ^{all you want} 15:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

A couple of users have asked for further input on the conflict on Wikiversity. From the stewards' point of view (as I see it), this is an internal conflict that should be handled by the community if at all possible. There is majority but no consensus about desysoping Abd, and the discussion is ongoing. The local proposal needs to be closed one way or another before we implement it. We will not close the proposal for you, since that's up to the community.

In typical cases a bureaucrat closes the proposal and forwards the decision to the stewards for implementation. That does not seem to be happening this time. The problem here is not that stewards are unwilling to arbitrate the conflict, but that there appears to be no local mechanism to do so. If nobody but stewards can resolve local disagreements, there are implications beyond this particular desysop request. Whether this case is decided by a bureaucrat or through another local decision-making process, you may want to think about how future disagreements will be resolved. —Pathoschild 02:40:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Just for the sake of FYI (and perhaps easing minds), the 'crats are quite aware of this discussion, but our policy is: "Community reviews should be closed when it is clear that there is a consensus, or when it becomes clear that a consensus will not be reached.". We don't seem to be quite there yet, and the ongoing discussion is still quite active. Thanks. --SB_Johnny ^talk 16:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Pathoschild. Your analysis is as expected from a steward. The flap at Wikiversity is caused by one seriously disgruntled user, backed up by one or two others with similar resentments, and with the small active admin core of Wikiversity, almost all are either involved or so disgusted as to stay away. However, the process at Wikiversity is not broken, it is merely turgid. I see no reason for steward involvement at this time. There are potential "cross-wiki issues," and if those become significant, steward action that is respectful of the local community could become appropriate. It isn't there yet. --Abd 13:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

"here is majority but no consensus about desysoping Abd" It is unanimous, not a majority. If there was even one oppose you might be able to make some tiny but outrageous claim to a lack of consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

That discussion has never appeared in the WV site message, which is the norm for serious discussions like this, and the reason is probably that no custodian has been prepared to consider it other than frivolous, worthy of extensive discussion. In spite of multiple threats by Ottava that two custodians were ready to block me "as soon as they came on," no custodian has supported his actions, so far, at least not in public, and we already know that Ottava is quite capable of converting "I'll look at it and make sure that policies are followed" into "I'm behind you all the way, they will soon be toast." He's been claiming that stewards are lined up to do his bidding. Presumably "as soon as they come on."

The discussion about me was started on the Colloqium as a topic ban proposal, and immediate support appeared from a curious collection of users, and then Ottava moved it to Community Review (also out of process, complaints about custodians are to be raised, by policy, at Custodian feedback, if not handled before that by ordinary discussion), with only about a fourth of the discussion being transferred. Through this, an appearance of consensus was created. I analyzed the contributions at [4]. Am I concerned about the small level of support shown, there? Certainly! However, it shows a common wiki problem: lack of attention, users burn out over conflict and stop watching it. I do know that there are Wikiversity users bailing because of this kind of nonsense. We permit it at great cost. --Abd 17:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

See Requests for comment/User:Ottava Rima, particularly new material at the end and proposal by Jack Merridew. --Abd 17:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Based on a comment from SB_Johnny, a Wikiversity 'crat, the discussion there may be closed by him today, with a conclusion of desysop seeming likely. SB_Johnny has been authorized by me to act in this way, should he choose, even though otherwise I might claim recusal failure (he was opposed to my custodianship from the beginning). To me, my bit is not the issue, it is not that important, and my intervention here was to interdict Ottava's attempt to bypass normal process in pursuit of personal vendettas, see the Request for comment mentioned above. --Abd 19:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Ottava reverted removal of continued discussion to here

From prior precedent, I moved the extended discussion after close to this Talk page. Ottava has reverted that without explanation, see [5]. Please review and respond appropriately, thanks. --Abd 17:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Moved from Steward requests/Permissions as of 21:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC) (oldid). -- Dferg ^{☎ talk} 21:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Why was the OS permission removed from the ombudsmen? Their mandate is to investigate privacy breaches/checkuser usage, so it is understandable as to why their regular CU privileges should be removed. From my brief research, I do not see where they are charged with investigation of misuse of suppression/redaction/oversight (that is kept for a local arbcom or the community as a whole where no arbcom exists) and, thus, why should the bit be removed? -- Avi 16:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, Ombudsman commission says “The ombudsman commission investigates complaints about violations of the privacy policy (in particular concerning the use of CheckUser tools) on any Wikimedia project for the board of trustees in an official manner.” The privacy policy also deals with oversight related issues although that's not explicitely mentioned on Ombudsman commission. —DerHexer (Talk) 16:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Just throwing on my 0.02. Taking the whole idea on a bit. If oversight is removed because it is part of the investigation profile of the commission then equally global oversight to review action taken would be appropriate? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It also discusses OTRS, does this means that ombudsmen must stop volunteering for OTRS during their term? -- Avi 17:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

That too :) -- Avi 17:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

My comments, as far as I saw last year. When Lar was appointed his oversight tools from commons were not removed from his account during his term; only his CU/steward tools were removed. It is an interesting point wether the ombudsman commission should be tasked with the review of the oversight tools. Since the OC is tasked to investigate privacy violations in an official manner (and *not* limited to the usage of the CheckUser tool) it would make sense to me to address them concerns about that since oversight is IMHO strongly linked with privacy. Wether a community has an ArbCom or not, we must not forget that investigations by the OC are official investigations. I suggest the OC members to discuss this issue between them too. -- Dferg ^{☎ talk} 19:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, move to Talk:Steward requests/Permissions this whole thread? This page shouldn't be a place to discuss, etc... -- Dferg ^{☎ talk} 19:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I concur. —DerHexer (Talk) 00:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

So....? -- Avi 18:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that this is a matter to the Board & the commission to resolve. Thanks, -- Dferg ^{☎ talk} 22:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough; is the board informed that we have this issue? -- Avi 23:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

No, AFAIK. I'll point this to them shortly. -- Dferg ^{☎ talk} 12:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

... and done. -- Dferg ^{☎ talk} 18:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

My Steward, if it is possible, I would like to ask you to insert any "style sheet" in or in respect of the Thai Wikisource for the tables therein are all colourless and have no lines at all. Certain users said it is so required. Thank you so much. --Aristitleism

Could you please provide us an example? I think that this is because deprecated CSS, but an example can help us provide a more accurate answer. -- Dferg ^{☎ talk} 12:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

A while ago I've opened a thread here regarding what the policy considers "inactive". Because from time to time we receive requests to remove X or Y CheckUser/Oversight access and I've saw different requests being actioned with different criteria. This thread looks for a standard procedure among stewards on how handle this situations:

CheckUser policy is a global policy and must not be ignored but respected in all Wikimedia projects.

I've concluded that on policy we must differentiate between the "pure policy" part and the "procedural" part. They are tied each other so let me explain myself. Whilst «[t]he tool should not be used for political control» is a pure policy part and I expect we all agree that if a project approves a CheckUser policy for use this tool in that way we would be at least informing the Board or the Staff; the «[a]ny user account with CheckUser status that is inactive for more than a year will have their CheckUser access removed» is policy-procedural. Inactivity is a reason to loose the status but does not define what is inactivity.

To be sincere I still find that statement very vague because the policy has not left clear what can be considered an inactive CheckUser. And that part is one of the few, absent a clarification on the global policy, that might be regulated locally.

As such I made the following

Proposal

When we receive a request to remove somebody's Oversight or CheckUser access based on inactivity only I propose that:

• If that project has a clearly defined CU-inactivity rule, follow it.
• If the project has not a clearly defined CU-inactivity rule:
  • Check log actions and edits. If he has at least one, the user keeps his status. If no edits or logged actions, then:
  • Verify the CheckUser log and check if there have been any CU activity. If it's at least one check made, the editor keeps its status.

So we don't focus only in CU-activity only (which should be low) but on edits and the like.

Questions or comments? -- Dferg 09:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• You mean a single edit on their talk page is sufficient for keeping CU? I don't agree to that. I think there should be at least one CU log action. And I'm really not a friend of the one year rule. The problem is not so much on projects with several CUs, but on those with only two it is a problem if one of them is not around for several months. There is a reason why two active CUs are required and that is that they need to control each other which isn't possible if one is barely there. My proposal would be: Inactivity means that there is no edit for one month or no logged CU action for six months. If a CU has to take a longer break and would then leave only one active CU on the wiki, they should either elect another CU on the wiki or to request a temporary substitution by a steward for not longer than 3 months. During such a substitution time, all CU requests have to be made in a language that both, the active CU and the steward, understand, or if that is not possible, a trusted user needs to translate the requests into English. Of course, the one year thingy on the CU policy would have to be amended. --თოგო ^(D) 20:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

  Actually I don't agree either that 1 single edit is enough to keep the permission for the same reason that you've stated: mutual control (tho the Ombusmen and the Staff [and previously stewards] had cu-log access). There is an open bug to reactivate the global checkuser log which would substantially increase the amount of oversight between all checkusers/stewards [and the access to private data :-(]. But given that the policy says anything about inactivity I preferred to use the most restrictive interpretation possible and that is 0 edits / 0 log actions / 0 checks. I'd preferr harder rules, tho. I asked on the talk page and even the Board to clarify this yet we've obtained a set of different opinions far to form a consensus [and the Board, as always, remained silent]. And updating the CheckUser policy is something I don't think I should be doing alone. Your inactivity proposal looks good and I agree we should amend the current policy [hence this thread]. Notwithstanding forcing one user to use the tool once every 6 months is something I don't like. There must be a valid reason for using the tool. Of course you can check yourself but that's a bit dumb, no? :-) -- Dferg 21:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

  You're right, it's not desired to perform a dummy check just to stay "active". I meant it to be a reasoned and documented CU action, of course. :) If two CUs are there and one is doing all the checks and the other, although editing, is not doing anything CU-related, one might still question the flag... Maybe I'm too strict with them poor CUs? ^^ --თოგო ^(D) 21:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• You never know what a flag is going to be like until you have it for a while. I think one of the most important things about the checkuser flag is to know the current state of sockpuppets, vandals and trolls etcetera on your project and hopefully also crosswiki. Unless you keep current your effectiveness as a checkuser to your project becomes less and less over time. I don't know how you incorporate it into a policy but I think inactivity is something that occurs when you can no longer be an effective checkuser because of lack of contemporary knowledge of the state-of-play. CU's also don't work in isolation. A lot of xwiki chat and checks go on. Depending on the project, a CU could become inactive (unable to effectively do the role) in a variable span of time. I left simplewiki for three months and although I did the odd check, I had to take some time to learn what was going on in the CU world again. I don't know if this can be incorporated but it's a thought I've been thinking. Just my 2 cents fr33kman 03:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• In lieu of nothing this is an improvement, and I would prefer to get the basics in place, and then fine-tune the definition of inactive. So beyond the basics, I would suggest another criteria, and that is a responsiveness clause. I would think that a CheckUser would and should be able to respond to an admin's request for action, or at least a prod to "are you there?". To that I would think that a CU should be able to respond to request for contact within 1 month of that notice (at most 3 months). It will be too late for a CU at that point, however, it sets a limit on what is considered adequate time to respond. billinghurst sDrewth 12:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone point me to where this has been discussed? There was a bugzilla last year, declined for lack of discussion, and mention of a thread but no link: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23706. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 11:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I don't really understand what changes you want to made... You want 'crats to be able to give import and transwiki rights on every projects ? -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 11:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. On wikisource projects these could be very important rights if they were easier to implement. It's grumbled about frequently, but apparently no one has done anything about it.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 12:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

When is it useful on Wikisource? (Except when exporting/import a wiki from oldwikisource to the subdomain.) The tranwiki-tool, I only use to import templates. Importing texts from other wikis are rare, since such texts normally are outside the Inclusion policy. -- Lavallen 13:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

First, this is ancillary, the real point is that crats should have the ability to grant unbundled rights, regardless of how frequent they are needed. Second, I'm not sure this is the place to actually have the discussion. However, to answer your question, I find transwiki importer rights extremely useful, for example on la.ws I have found hundreds, and there are probably thousands, of pages that have been transcribed on other subdomains as part of bilingual works that can be imported to la.ws. Furthermore, {{iwpage}} is poorly understood and even more poorly implemented. There are times when the only real solution is to transcribe in both languages and only a few sources are strict enough to prohibit this; so I don't consider it rare at all. Transcribe in one and import to the other is the most efficient way to do this. Of course, the point you mention about templates is important and not at all a small matter. I am not fluent in fr or de; nor am I a cross-domain vandal fighter type, I would never qualify for sysop on de or fr and I don't really need it currently on old.ws; however, I could very much use transwiki importer on all of those. However, this isn't about me (though I do have a pending request on old.ws). But I have suggested that all active users have this right on la.ws and we had a request today on en.ws that was attempted by a crat only to discover he couldn't do it - and he had no idea why. It was a classic case, a highly experienced commons admin (or maybe a crat) being given transwiki importer on a source where he has very little activity and has no reason to be a sysop. There are many such possibilities. The point is, that any wiki that trusts a crat to award sysop must trust them to award unbundled rights. Any wiki that doesn't can either 1) opt out or 2) ask that transwiki importer be disabled. Why on Earth do we have a right only to say that nobody really needs this right so we won't allow it to be awarded locally. But again, I think the actual discussion needs to occur elsewhere.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 16:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Herein above, an example. Apparently the template "tl" doesn't exist here. I'd have to look to see if it has a variant here and just needs a redirect but I could easily import it if it was necessary and I had that right. I have no use, nor desire, to be a meta admin; yet I'm sure there are few who would argue that I haven't the skill to import this template. I'm sure there are many similarly situated.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 16:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

We use Template:Tlx and Template:Tl do exist. -- Marco Aurelio 17:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see, Template:Tl exists and in fact worked above, it's that template iwpage doesn't exist of course. I was in a hurry and didn't realize what I was looking at.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I see your point on la.wikisource! And I also think you can add that right to a larger group of users on that project. The average la.wikisource-contributor looks different from many other projects. But I would not easily give that right to a larger group on svws, since this is a action, that is very difficult to undo. All other admin-tools are easily undone, except import and transwikiimport. I have myself imported a template, and destroyed the history of more than one template at the same time. -- Lavallen 17:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• This is indeed not the correct place to discuss this but I oppose strongly. Instead of globally modifying for absolutelly no reason the bureaucrat scope, if a local community finds useful that local bureaucrats can grant 'transwiki' rights locally that wiki, prior community consensus, can ask the system administrators to modify the local configuration file to allow bureaucrats to be able to grant and remove that right. Modifying the entire WMF configuration just because a couple of wikis finds it useful seems unnaceptable for me. I don't see why stewards can't continue handling the granting and removal of this sensitive rights, as we've been doing for a very long time, with success. Anyway, changed in the global config require very wide global community consensus. I, myself, do not see a pressing need to do this. Best, -- Marco Aurelio 17:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• • The problem is that the right is highly underutilized simply because it's such a pain to get. Yes, the right has to be understood to be used properly, but many, many users already have it as sysops and crats can grant that easy enough. The right can go a long way on sources at least to breaking down some of the unnecessary barriers between domains. When I speak of giving it to a lot of users, I'm really saying, well you show up on xx.ws and you're an admin on y number of other projects, and everyone knows you but you really don't do that much locally. Those are common on sources. There are innumerable users on la.ws, en.ws, and old.ws whom I am aware of and at least myself on fr.ws and de.ws but probably many more, who are admins on other project but don't want/shouldn't have local sysop rights. They are great candidates for local transwiki but just try to get people involved in a discussion about a rarely given, subordinate right that requires steward involvement. Today, the nominator on en.ws, a highly respected local admin was prepared to simply drop a request to have User:Jarekt made a local transwiki importer simply because the bureaucracy frustrated him (to say the least). It is downright silly to say that crats are trusted to give sysop rights but ZOMG we wouldn't dare trust them to give transwiki importer because it's such a sensitive right it requires a crat.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

But what is the problem of becomming a local temporary sysop on a ws-project, even if you do not know the language? I am sysop to be able to adit on a wiki where I sometimes is alone. I refused to wait two days to get a page moved without redirect, therefor I am sysop today. -- Lavallen 17:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that only relevant on very inactive wikis? I really only became aware it existed today; but really I don't expect temporary admin status on an active wiki just so I can make several imports every couple of weeks. Again, though, I'm happy to ask for transwiki, await consensus, and get a steward, but I think it's logically inconsistent to say that crats can't do it just as well if not better. Moreover, I am talking about a long term right and that exists and would be quite valuable to other users on several projects that I'm currently an admin on (and therefore have no need for the right).--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A pain to get? Explain me how can be bureaucracy posting a simple template at SRP linking to community consensus and let a steward grant or remove that right? Is that hard? Or is because there was no community consensus? You know that stewards are expected to implement valid community consensus and absent a local discussion/policy we don't grant rights. Your rationale is wikisource-only based here. As I've said if those projects want bureaucrats be able to grant and remove those rights they should get local consensus and fill a ticket in bugzilla. If you're worried about steward involvement you should not be. We're not demons and speaking myself I'm more than happy to help the projects. Clicking a checkbox is not going to overload any of us. Again, I see no reason to modify the global WMF configuration because of a couple of (respectable) projects wants this. Those projects can locally decide which kind of rights wants bureaucrats to be able to grant and remove (with limitations). Transwiki is disabled by default in all projects. Import sources should be configurated first for admins and transwiki importers to be able to use the tool. -- Marco Aurelio 18:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not in the least afraid of asking stewards, I filed the request here because others didn't want to and I have a pending request on old.ws that once there's consensus I expect to bring here. However, I also have absolutely no fear that crats will give the right when there is no consensus and a lot of faith that they will have a better idea what local consensus is. Eg. on some projects a single unopposed request could be considered consensus depending on prior history. Was there consensus for today's en.ws request? I believe there is but the fact that one of our two crats tried to implement it, is to me conclusive. The steward, however, had to go on my assertion that there was consensus. Had the crat known that he couldn't implement, he never would've tried so there would be no comment from the crat saying "I tried but I can't"; how would the steward have known whether consensus existed in terms of that right on that wiki? More importantly, I asked here where the prior discussions were so that I could reference them elsewhere, I am quite certain that this is not the place to be having this debate; I only want to know what discussions we've had before. This is part of the bureaucracy I referenced: I asked where the prior discussions were and the responses were effectively, "Oppose - why would you want to do that!" and Oppose - no need. I'm not trying to open a discussion here, I'm trying to get information on where this has been discussed before. As I noted in my first comment, there was a bugzilla that said it would be posted on meta but no link. Searches have come up with nothing for me. That's the point here. We can discuss this after we've figured out where the prior discussions were and where the right forum is.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - too many transwiki-ers currently. ;-) I hope this is understood as a joke. Killiondude 06:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  • LOL. Yes there certainly are.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 07:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't if it has been already proposed but, imho, it's worth to write down some line about the expediency of wait ~1 day before processing self-requests. Self-requests are often made on ragequit and removal of access is such burning one's boats expecially on those project where is not so easy to regain the flag back. --Vituzzu 18:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It really doesn't hurt anything to have this, but it could help in terms of giving people some cool-off time. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good idea, because there is definitely no harm with this kind of requests. But is one day enough for somebody to come back after a "ragequit" ? -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 19:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

That depends on the temperature and the thermal conductivity of the user. An inofficial minimum of 24 hours will give at least the wikifriends on the project some time to act. -- Lavallen 19:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I would say: let the people confirm the request after 24 huors, and if confirmed, than remove the flag. --WizardOfOz ^talk 19:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a bit much. For people leaving the project, or those who don't frequent Meta, confirmation will most probably lead to unprocessed requests. I'd say that if there is no change in circumstance after 24 hours, the request can be processed. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Yea, I wouldn't go as far as confirmation - all that would do is make it more inconvenient for the people who want their rights removed for non-raging reasons. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. --Brownout^(msg) 20:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with PeterSymonds. Keep in mind that self requests are not always due to pressure/anger, etc... It could be a user is (nearly) inactive on a wiki and therefore wants the sysop bit removed. Asking him/her to confirm after 24 hours would make it quite complex. Savh^ñ 20:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

For those who are living or in cases someone realy needs the flag immidiatly removed, we could establish some short irc talk with the handling steward. Otherway if someone don´t react within two days, the fag can be removed IMO. --WizardOfOz ^talk 20:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

PS: editconflict with Savh, I´m sure that a short look at his contributions is enough to see if active or not. --WizardOfOz ^talk 20:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

So, my final proposal is the addition of something like Self-requests, in order to avoid rethinks [or ...to cool-down...], should be performed, at least, after a day. to the header. Feel free to improve my poor English :D --Vituzzu 10:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

In German we have the term "Preußsische Nacht" or "Militärische Nacht", it derived from the Prussian Army and is said to be known in British Army too. So give everyone a night to think about his request! a×p_de^Hello! 10:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Can ask a question of why this is necessary? Are you going to treat all administrators as small children who need a guidance from "adults" on Meta? I as to me I do not subscribe to this opinion. It is almost insulting to treat other people in this way. All users here are volunteers who can not be forced to do anything, even to remain administrators for additional 24 hours. So, because I find this proposal quite silly and disrespectful of others, I am going to ignore it regardless of the outcome of the present discussion. Ruslik 14:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Admins (and any other people with advanced rights), should think before acting. Don't think it is necessary to wait long, but I think waiting at least a few minutes wouldn't hurt as there is also no rush in doing things within the same minute as it is posted here. -Barras 15:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Ruslik, but will abide by consensus if it's decided that there should be an obligatory waiting period. Jafeluv 17:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

No children and no insults, just human beings which can act on an impulse. Three of our best (no flattering) stewards did so (but I can be wrong since I was on a short wikibreak) and we're now happy to see them back at work...

Making a cost-benefit analysis I don't see any cost but I can see some benefits.--Vituzzu 23:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Vituzzu - we're all human, and as a result our emotions can take us all to places where we would rather not be. I don't think that having an unannounced cooldown period before granted self requests implies that we are treating the requestee like a child, but rather just giving them a chance to reconsider should they wish to. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing strange in it: we have a lot of processes where a minimum period between proposal/request and implementation is required for thorough consideration. Even if something can be decided by a single individual, more time can be needed to allow for new elements to arise, just as in consensual discussions. I'd rather leave this to common sense because 24 hours is a good average but could be too little (or not needed), but the discussion shows it's useful to clarify it so I've slightly edited the header. Nemo 07:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I love how stewards can disregard consensus when they don't like the outcome, anyway he did say he would have done so. --Brownout^(msg) 11:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The standard message on Steward_requests/Permissions/Approved temporary says: Usually adminship extensions do not require a local request. However seems we still require a local announcement? No? --Bencmq 15:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

For extension? Mhm.. I don't think so. We usually do not ask for announcement or local request for extension. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 07:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I found it bizarre community of WMBr ask for dismissal of the volunteer management tools, the result of an internal process and the stewards find themselves above the community and not heeding the request promptly. The discussion lasted almost a month and a steward aks to give two days talking to them, if they are active, that this was one of the arguments, they saw the process. And even if they had not seen, has the largest part of the community participating in the vote, you should have respected the decision and over. Tip, you can not criticize something you do not have enough knowledge, I'm not saying you could not opine, but when you impose your authority on something that does not belong to you and also overrides the opinion of others, you are wrong. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 05:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It is a long standing tradition in the wiki community that users who are discussed somewhere ought to be notified about this discussion. It appeared that they were not in the case of WMBr. It is not sufficient to say that "they should know if they active" because they may be active and not know. This actually happened in the WMBr case: some of them were active but did not know. Apart from simply demonstrating respect for the user, notification serves another important purpose: it prevents a group of users from holding a discussion on an obscure page without notifying anybody and then claiming a consensus. For stewards (who may not speak the language of the wiki) it may be extremely difficult to deduce what actually happened in such a case. Ruslik 12:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

This is just a bureaucracy.. a lot of rules for nothing... Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 22:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)