Meta:Requests for checkuser/Ausir (removal)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.

Ausir edit

This is a request for removing the checkuser access of User:Ausir. We discussed that here already. Ausir got CU access some time ago, probably for log access. He never used it for a request on Meta, and he is not a steward any more. Please tell us your opinion about this, considering the CU policy. --Thogo (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC) (not as a steward, but as member of this community) p.s. I'll try to notify Ausir about this to get his opinion as well. I think we let this run for one week only, that will probably be enough to get consensus about this.[reply]

Keep edit

Remove edit

The community have never elected this user as checkuser and he was granted "log access" as a steward - a position that he no longer holds. This is a housekeeping exercise that was overlooked in the removal of steward rights --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, as housekeeping. He's inactive here, and has no need for the right. Checkuser is something that should be removed after long term inactivity. Majorly (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
remove, per above. This should really be clarified in the CU policy. --Thogo (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
remove --.snoopy. 20:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
remove per herby--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 20:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
remove per right been given in capacity as a Steward and not being used and not elected by the community and as Thogo mentioned, this has to be "clarified" in the Checkuser Policy to prevent future misunderstandings..--Comet styles 20:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CU granted here by other than community election is for log access only and is granted only to active stewards. Since Ausir is not an active steward: Remove. If the CU policy is unclear, it should be clarified as well. Right now the policy is undergoing revision so this is an ideal time to clarify it. ++Lar: t/c 22:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - I am in agreement with what has been stated above. ----Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No community vote, no longer a steward... remove the bit. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, per most everyone above. xaosflux ^Talk 06:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments edit

The same can be said about bureaucrat access. Some inactive stewards hold bureaucrat access which they gained when they became stewards (e.g. Datrio and Fantasy). Since we have plenty of elected bureaucrats, they have no need for that role either. Majorly (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference being that it seems highly unlikely that Ausir's right to log access was ever granted by the community (not that I disagree with you over inactivity & tools) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think 'crat access was either. Majorly (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike CU access here (for purposes of reviewing logs only, not carrying out checks, stewards should not be running meta only checks here, leave that to the elected CUs), stewards should not have crat access anywhere that they were not elected. If Datrio and Fantasy were not elected here (could we double check that they were not elected, please?) they should be removed, but that's perhaps something to discuss in another thread. ++Lar: t/c 22:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding was that any self-promotion by a steward was supposed to be temporary (though the definition of "temporary" is certainly open to debate). However, if they were never elected, and promoted themselves via their stewardship (which I'm not saying is a bad thing per se), any such promotion should immediately revert back once they're not a steward if there wasn't community consensus. Just my two cents. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately we need waste no more community time on this matter which should have been dealt with when steward access was removed as a steward has now done it. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]