Meta talk:Administrators/Archives/2008
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Gdgourou in topic General problem with a user
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Table of administrators
This is just an idea; it's much more convenient, we can sort administrators by any field, and it's easy to maintain confirmation dates (just search and replace {{date and time since|date}}).
| user name | languages spoken (>1) | other rights | next confirmation |
|---|---|---|---|
| .anaconda | it, en-2 | bureaucrat, steward | 2009-01-01 (5579 days ago) |
| .snoopy. | it, vec, en-2 | 2008-04-01 (5854 days ago) | |
| A. B. | en | 2009-04-01 (5489 days ago) | |
| Akl | de, en | 2009-01-01 (5579 days ago) | |
| alnokta | ar, en | 2009-01-01 (5579 days ago) | |
| Alexanderps | pt, en-2, es-2, gl-2 | 2009-04-01 (5489 days ago) | |
| AmiDaniel | en, de-3 | 2009-01-01 (5579 days ago) | |
| Andre Engels | de, en, nl | 2009-01-01 (5579 days ago) | |
| Andrevan | en, fr | 2008-07-01 (5763 days ago) | |
| Angela | en | bureaucrat, steward | 2009-01-01 (5579 days ago) |
| Anonymous Dissident | en | 2009-01-01 (5579 days ago) | |
| Anthere | fr, en-3 | bureaucrat, checkuser, steward | 2009-01-01 (5579 days ago) |
| Arria Belli | en, es, fr-4, ca-2, it-2 | 2009-01-01 (5579 days ago) | |
| Az1568 | en | 2009-04-01 (5489 days ago) | |
| Bastique | en, fr-3, es-2 | steward | 2008-04-01 (5854 days ago) |
| Beetstra | en | 2009-07-01 (5398 days ago) | |
| Brion VIBBER | en, eo | checkuser, steward | 2009-01-01 (5579 days ago) |
| Cbrown1023 | en | 2008-04-01 (5854 days ago) | |
| Cometstyles | en, hi, hif, mar-3, pa-3, bg-2, fj-2, ur-2 | 2009-04-01 (5489 days ago) | |
| Cspurrier | en, de-2 | checkuser, steward | 2008-04-01 (5854 days ago) |
| Datrio | en, pl | bureaucrat | 2008-07-01 (5763 days ago) |
| DerHexer | de, en-3, es-2, grc-2, la-2 | steward | 2009-04-01 (5489 days ago) |
| Dbl2010 | tr, en-3, az-2, de-2 | steward | 2008-10-01 (5671 days ago) |
| Drini | es, en-4 | checkuser, steward | 2008-04-01 (5854 days ago) |
| Dungodung | sr, en-4, bs-3, hr-3 | steward | 2008-04-01 (5854 days ago) |
| Edward Z. Yang | en | 2008-07-01 (5763 days ago) | |
| Effeietsanders | nl, en-2 | steward | 2008-04-01 (5854 days ago) |
| Elian | ar, de, en, fr | 2008-07-01 (5763 days ago) | |
| Eloquence | de, en-3 | 2009-01-01 (5579 days ago) | |
| EVula | en | 2009-01-01 (5579 days ago) | |
| Fantasy | de, en, it | bureaucrat | 2008-04-01 (5854 days ago) |
| FrancoGG | es, en-3 | 2008-10-01 (5671 days ago) | |
| Fuzheado | en | 2008-10-01 (5671 days ago) | |
| GerardM | 2008-07-01 (5763 days ago) | ||
| guillom | fr, en-3 | steward | 2009-01-01 (5579 days ago) |
| HappyDog | en, fr-2 | 2008-10-01 (5671 days ago) | |
| Hashar | en, fr | 2008-04-01 (5854 days ago) | |
| Herbythyme | en | checkuser | 2008-07-01 (5763 days ago) |
| Hillgentleman | en, yue, zh | 2009-01-01 (5579 days ago) | |
| Huji | en, fa | 2009-04-01 (5489 days ago) | |
| Jamesday | en | 2008-04-01 (5854 days ago) | |
| Jdforrester | en | 2008-10-01 (5671 days ago) | |
| Jimbo Wales | en | bureaucrat, steward | none (atemporal). |
| Jon Harald Søby | nb, en-3, nn-3, da-2, sv-2 | checkuser, steward | 2008-04-01 (5854 days ago) |
| Jusjih | zh, en-3 | steward | 2009-04-01 (5489 days ago) |
| Kate | en | steward | 2008-04-01 (5854 days ago) |
| Korg | en, fr | 2009-01-01 (5579 days ago) | |
| Kph | da, de, en, no, sv | bureaucrat | 2008-04-01 (5854 days ago) |
| Kylu | en, de-2, es-3, fr-3, pt-2 | bureaucrat | 2008-10-01 (5671 days ago) |
| Lar | en | bureaucrat, checkuser, steward | 2008-04-01 (5854 days ago) |
| M/ | it, en-3, es-2, fr-2 | bureaucrat, steward | 2009-01-01 (5579 days ago) |
| Majorly | en | bureaucrat | 2008-04-01 (5854 days ago) |
| MaxSem | ru, en-2 | bureaucrat, steward | 2008-10-01 (5671 days ago) |
| Meno25 | ar, en-4 | 2009-04-01 (5489 days ago) | |
| Millosh | bs, hr, sh, sr, en-3, bg-2, cu-2, mk-2, ru-2, sl-2 | steward | 2008-04-01 (5854 days ago) |
| Mindspillage | en | 2008-10-01 (5671 days ago) | |
| Mxn | en, es-2, vi-2 | 2008-10-01 (5671 days ago) | |
| Nakon | en | 2008-07-01 (5763 days ago) | |
| Nick1915 | it, vec, en-2 | steward | 2008-04-01 (5854 days ago) |
| Nishkid64 | en, es-2 | 2008-04-01 (5854 days ago) | |
| Nixeagle | en | 2008-04-01 (5854 days ago) | |
| Notafish | fr, en-4, de-3, es-2, it-2 | 2009-01-01 (5579 days ago) | |
| Oscar | nl, de-3, en-3, es-2, fr-3 | bureaucrat, checkuser, steward | 2008-07-01 (5763 days ago) |
| Pathoschild | en, fr-2 | checkuser, steward | 2008-07-01 (5763 days ago) |
| Patrick | nl, en-3 | 2008-10-01 (5671 days ago) | |
| Raul654 | en | 2008-10-01 (5671 days ago) | |
| Rdsmith4 | en | steward | 2008-10-01 (5671 days ago) |
| Redux | pt, en-4, es-3, fr-3, it-3, de-2, la-2 | checkuser, steward | 2008-04-01 (5854 days ago) |
| Sean Whitton | en | 2008-04-01 (5854 days ago) | |
| Shanel | en, fr-2 | steward | 2008-04-01 (5854 days ago) |
| Shizhao | zh | bureaucrat, steward | 2008-10-01 (5671 days ago) |
| Sj | en | bureaucrat, steward | 2008-04-01 (5854 days ago) |
| Slade | pt, en-3, es-2 | 2008-04-01 (5854 days ago) | |
| Snowdog | it, en-3 | bureaucrat | 2008-07-01 (5763 days ago) |
| Spacebirdy | de, es-3, en-2, fr-2, is-2 | checkuser, steward | 2009-01-01 (5579 days ago) |
| Suisui | en, ja | 2008-07-01 (5763 days ago) | |
| Tangotango | en, ja | 2008-07-01 (5763 days ago) | |
| Thogo | de, en-3 | steward | 2008-07-01 (5763 days ago) |
| Thunderhead | en | 2008-10-01 (5671 days ago) | |
| Tim Starling | en | bureaucrat, checkuser, steward | 2009-01-01 (5579 days ago) |
| Timichal | cs, en-3 | 2009-01-01 (5579 days ago) | |
| UninvitedCompany | en | 2008-07-01 (5763 days ago) | |
| VasilievVV | ru, en-3 | 2009-04-01 (5489 days ago) | |
| Walter | nl | steward | 2009-01-01 (5579 days ago) |
| Xaosflux | en | 2008-04-01 (5854 days ago) | |
| Yann | fr, en-3, hi-2 | bureaucrat, checkuser, steward | 2008-04-01 (5854 days ago) |
| Zanimum | en | 2008-04-01 (5854 days ago) | |
| Zirland | cs, en-3, pl-3, eo-2, sk-2 | steward | 2009-04-01 (5489 days ago) |
| Zocky | en | 2008-07-01 (5763 days ago) |
—{admin} Pathoschild 22:58:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Wow! I love it. Majorly (talk) 23:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Fantastic idea, Pathos. Very convenient. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Dude, really get a life..Shannie ain't getting any younger :P ...--Cometstyles 23:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Done. —Pathoschild 02:23:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Changes made
I've made some changes to reflect the discussion at Meta talk:Requests for adminship and the changes made by Herby at Meta:Requests for adminship. -- Avi 15:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
50 edits per year (2)
This was brought up back in 2005, but the issue was never resolved. The current policy reads:
- Any sysop inactive on Meta for a full year will be de-sysoped. "Inactive" means no edits in the past 6 months and less than 50 edits in the last year. They may re-apply through the regular way.
Is there any reason for the 50 edits requirement? Adminship is really no big deal on Meta, so I think that as long as someone is still trusted, there should be absolutely no reason to require 50 edits / year. I propose removing the requirement altogether. Thoughts? --MZMcBride 18:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- 50 edits seems reasonable. That is just taking part in discussions and making useful changes, and suchlike... It's the admin/crat actions where it may be harder to meet thresholds. I'm in favour of retaining the 50 edits requirement. ++Lar: t/c 21:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see how it would be difficult to get enough admin/crat actions - there is no shortage of work. However, I think removing the definition of "active" (but keeping activity as a requirement) is fine. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't actually make sense. "Inactive for a full year" and "no edits in the past six months" are two very different things. In any case, people make their own minds up on confirmations (which I think is better). Some people aren't very active at all, but have a very good need for admin rights. Majorly talk 21:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- So therefore, I think we should remove that text from the policy. Like on RfAs, people should be entitled to their opinion on how active they believe someone is, or whether they should continue being an admin. Majorly talk 21:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- 50 edits is too reasonable, I would have proposed 150 edits, but I'd rather not adn that "inactive" clause is different from the Confirmation one meaning even if someone confirmations pass but within time they fail that criteria above, their rights will be removed and that "adminship is really not a big deal" is 5 years old and it doesn't mean anything today and you propose to remove the only requirement that makes sense, in confirmations, people to save their adminship say that they will be active from now on, but are they?..the 50 edits will make sure that they keep their words, its simple, so its rather keep 50 edits or increase it to avoid "deadmins", I'd go for the former ..--Cometstyles 21:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- I strongly agree with Majorly – I think he hit the nail on the head. People can make up their own minds about whether or not an admin should be re-confirmed. With the current policy, it isn't a requirement as much as it is a pseudo-requirement. Most people voting in re-confirmations will willfully ignore a lack of edits (see Jimbo Wales, et al.) for various reasons. Policy should match practice. If the 50 edits / year isn't an actual requirement to retain Meta adminship, it should be removed. --MZMcBride 23:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- I oppose removing it. However if there is consensus not to enforce it, then make it a suggestion or a guideline then. I think there is merit in having a framework, which people then consider and deal with special cases as they see fit. The alternative is to give no guidance at all which strikes me as imprudent, given the wide population of participants, coming from many different wikis with many different norms. ++Lar: t/c 01:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- Basically keeping it makes our vote useless... if the result was one way in favour, but policy stated they should be desysopped, we would have to desysop, regardless of outcome. We should either have a policy, where people are routinely desysopped, or people are allowed their own opinion. We can't very well have both. Majorly talk 01:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- Edits shows the activity levels of an editor and removing it will mean we would have to judge their merits on other wikis and regarding Jimbo, he is an Honorary admin so he will never lose his rights unless he gives it up himself, routine de-sysop has been working fine till now but for a wiki with 87 admins and only 20 active, it shows that Confirmations isn't working that well though our percentage of active admins is really high compared to some other bigger wikis and the inactivity clause deals with Special cases, so I don't really seen any point in removing it. "Inactive" means no edits in the past 6 months and less than 50 edits in the last year. << though the only mistake I see with that is "no edits in the past 6 months" so if that person made one edit, he may keep his rights which is wrong and the Confirmations makes sure that that 1 edit doesn't count..so it works in both ways :) ..--Cometstyles 02:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- So we should expect people like Tim Starling to stop doing development work and make 50 edits to not lose their +sysop? (See second section of this page.) That's simply silly. People can judge if a person is active on their own. (And they can choose how much that matters in that user's particular case.) A strict requirement is unnecessary and overly bureaucratic. And we've seen over and over people simply choosing to ignore the "requirement." As I said previously, policy should match practice, and in this case, it simply doesn't. More specifically: Cometstyles: you're free to vote in reconfirmations using whatever personal requirements you'd like. But so are others. I still don't see any compelling reason for this requirement to exist. --MZMcBride 02:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- Edits shows the activity levels of an editor and removing it will mean we would have to judge their merits on other wikis and regarding Jimbo, he is an Honorary admin so he will never lose his rights unless he gives it up himself, routine de-sysop has been working fine till now but for a wiki with 87 admins and only 20 active, it shows that Confirmations isn't working that well though our percentage of active admins is really high compared to some other bigger wikis and the inactivity clause deals with Special cases, so I don't really seen any point in removing it. "Inactive" means no edits in the past 6 months and less than 50 edits in the last year. << though the only mistake I see with that is "no edits in the past 6 months" so if that person made one edit, he may keep his rights which is wrong and the Confirmations makes sure that that 1 edit doesn't count..so it works in both ways :) ..--Cometstyles 02:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- Basically keeping it makes our vote useless... if the result was one way in favour, but policy stated they should be desysopped, we would have to desysop, regardless of outcome. We should either have a policy, where people are routinely desysopped, or people are allowed their own opinion. We can't very well have both. Majorly talk 01:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- I oppose removing it. However if there is consensus not to enforce it, then make it a suggestion or a guideline then. I think there is merit in having a framework, which people then consider and deal with special cases as they see fit. The alternative is to give no guidance at all which strikes me as imprudent, given the wide population of participants, coming from many different wikis with many different norms. ++Lar: t/c 01:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- I strongly agree with Majorly – I think he hit the nail on the head. People can make up their own minds about whether or not an admin should be re-confirmed. With the current policy, it isn't a requirement as much as it is a pseudo-requirement. Most people voting in re-confirmations will willfully ignore a lack of edits (see Jimbo Wales, et al.) for various reasons. Policy should match practice. If the 50 edits / year isn't an actual requirement to retain Meta adminship, it should be removed. --MZMcBride 23:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- (deindent) There are users, both non- and admin, who somehow find it difficult to find work to do here. Frankly I haven't had that problem, but some people have more types of work they're able/willing to do. As long as they're attempting, we should consider that and not go out of our way to disenfranchise them. Suggest alternate lines of work if they're close to the threshold. Additionally, if we're going to hold strictly to our votes, we should change the editcountitis section from policy to guideline. Lastly, both Brion and Tim have chimed in on my special global permissions, and upon implementation, they'll have all the rights they need everywhere: Keeping them as Steward and Admin here will be purely honorary as they'll have whatever access they require. Kylu 02:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- Adminship on Meta is quite a big deal given the effect that can be had cross project with BL, interwiki mapping etc etc. Times have changed since the pronouncement that it was not.
- Meta is not some admin club that it would be nice to join/be part of. It is an active working wiki which requires active working admins.
- That said I am in favour of removing any specific edit figure as it merely allows people to argue that someone is or is not ok. The community is quite capable of reaching its own views on who is or is not active. --Herby talk thyme 07:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- One thing that people seem to be overlooking in their arguments for removing the "50 edits" part is that it is only part of the whole. And, not or. Under 50 edit in a year and no edits in the last six months. People do not need 50 edits in the last year. As long as they edited one time in the last six months, that can be their only edit that year and the clause would not apply to them. As writen, the clause covers totally inactive for the last six months and little activity over the last year. Both requirements have to be met. Confirmations can balance this out in theory by letting everyone decide if their activity was sufficient to need to tools. This just sets two conditions of which only one needs to be met to not be removed. 50 edits in January - you are good until next January. 1 edit in January and you need to check back in before July. 70.174.72.174 16:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Policy to request section
"Be an administrator, bureaucrat, or checkuser on a local Wikipedia or related project."
Should that be "Be an administrator, bureaucrat, or checkuser on a Wikimedia content wiki." ? Seems kind of strange to give Wikipedia precedence there. --MZMcBride 03:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that's very dated. Should be changed. Majorly talk 13:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Not all user come from wikipedia.Good point --Mardetanha talk 16:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Doesn't the "or related project" do this? --Thogo (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Why give Wikipedia higher importance? It's much better to say Wikimedia project. Majorly talk 22:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- "Be an administrator, bureaucrat, or checkuser on any Wikimedia project" works for me ...--Cometstyles 01:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Why give Wikipedia higher importance? It's much better to say Wikimedia project. Majorly talk 22:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Done — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
General problem with a user
Hello, i already made a request here on but i have one more time remove a privacy violation, this user put my real name on some wiki like this one [1], and it's only one thing, lot of insult... on others please could you do something ? --Gdgourou 23:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)