Talk:Admin activity review/Archives/2013

Might be better to move proposal here, fix it, histmerge

Resolved.

So we don't lose translations... of course, it might be better to just start from scratch (the old one was just about a proposal). PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I was planning to find out which pieces are still intact from that and to copy over their translations. This page naturally differs quite a bit from the proposal. --MF-W 17:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I found out:

Summary - AAR
5,6 - 10
7 - 3
9 - 12
10 - 7
11 ~ 19
13 ~ 8
26 - 16
20,21,22 ~ 18
25 ~ 15
16 ~ 11
18 ~ 14

I'm going to copy over the equal messages translations now. The nearly-equivalent stuff will be shown to translators thanks to translation memory anyway. --MF-W 18:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

done. --MF-W 18:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

it.quote

Note: following it.wikiquote practice, as a bureaucrat I'll re-flag any user deflagged by stewards under this proposed policy, unless the removal is supported by a local policy. --Nemo 06:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You're free to do so, but it would be a failure in communication from stewards if we removed the rights then anyway. --MF-W 17:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

"they should contact the stewards at Steward requests/Permissions"

We should perhaps make a new section on that page. It should be translated, perhaps. PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hm, maybe that isn't the right page. Maybe it's better to say Stewards noticeboard or even Talk:Admin activity review/2013. But only if that doesn't require a new RFC of course :P --MF-W 20:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Changed now. It can in the future always be changed as suitable, also depending on what our experience is when conducting the review. --MF-W 01:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

continued requirement

"Following a community's discussion, if the community then wishes to keep some, or all, of these notified rights, they should contact the stewards at Steward requests/Permissions, and in that contact the user should point to the discussion raised at their community, express their wish to continue to maintain the rights, and demonstrate a continued requirement to maintain these rights."

In other words, stewards are free to ignore the community and engage in edit wars with local bureaucrats because the community didn't "demonstrate a continued requirement". Of course, the page doesn't state what a "continued requirement" actually is, so it is left to the discretion of the stewards. This is exactly what I postulated earlier, community consensus is simply overridden and this will be pushed through, whether they want it or not.

Also, I find it highly evil that only the affected user(s), and not the community as a whole, is notified. So if they don't notice, then the admins will be removed without the community ever being notified of this. -- Liliana • 05:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

No reply from stewards? PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

No, we just hope nobody else notices and then will REMOVE EVERYONE MUHAHAHAHA. More seriously, recently I thought that before notifying individual users, we should send notes to the community on those projects that have inactive sysops & of which we don't know that they have a policy about it. So then they will get to know that these users' rights might be removed, and can put up their own policies if they want. Though I really wonder why a community would care about someone holding sysop rights who is completely inactive since 2 years & where they don't even notice someone writes on his talk page. --MF-W 03:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

If so, we might want to have that translated. Is July too ambitious? PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe not, July is long. However the policy page itself is still marked as a draft, it might need some attention first to ensure it expresses what was decided in the RFC (also regarding the continued requirement stuff that was brought up in this section). --MF-W 03:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I have just made a change in the imagined plan ([1]) to include the community notification. Now to the "continued requirement": I'm thinking that:

1. a continued requirement could also be the wish of the community to have e.g. experienced people "available in the background" with the rights
2. It says that "where stewards do not receive such a suitable reply" (i.e. one which also demonstrate the continued requirement) "after approximately one month they will evaluate the responses and will either refer a decision back to local communities for their comment and review, or proceed to remove advanced administrative rights. With the continued aim for the process to be each community's decision, and to be supported by the stewards." - So if there are responses, but ones which do not show the cont. requirement, stewards/we would first reach back to the community for clarifications etc. --MF-W 01:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

CU and OS

Why does "advanced rights" include CU and OS? Aren't there already official WMF policies on inactivity of CheckUsers/Oversighters? PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, they are advanced rights for sure, but "This policy does not override any existing means of review through the community, nor override any more restrictive system currently used by the community. For example, stewards are currently confirmed on an annual basis by the whole of the Wikimedia Foundation community; whereas checkusers and oversighters currently have a higher standard with regard to periods of activity." --MF-W 18:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)