Meta talk:Requests for adminship/Archives/2009
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Dferg in topic local oversighters
 | Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2009, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index. |
Meh - confirmations?
Being picky - should confirmations of admins have started it being April 1? --Herby talk thyme 12:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Meta:Administrators/confirm: It seems the community decided to do away with confirmations... I believe Majorly was the one who effected the change, perhaps ask him...? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- OK - must have missed that :( And there is me saying to folk how good Meta's confirmation process is - thanks & regards --Herby talk thyme 12:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think a different solution was proposed, but I think I might have been away for that as well. See the talk page. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- We're supposed to be using a similar system to commons, that removes all the voting. Seriously, you thought the confirmations were good? It's good to remove inactive people, but that can be done without a vote. Majorly talk 13:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well.... I guess it allowed "painless" removal of the dead wood (:)), they tend to cause a fuss still on Commons.... I was also aware of this issue. --Herby talk thyme 13:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think we missed putting it onto Meta:Administrators. I'll go through all the admins now, and make up a list of those who don't meet criteria. Majorly talk 13:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Good idea. Even though I did take away the rights of Benjamin straight away, it might be best to discuss (or at least mention) a mass removal of rights before it is done (although, I'm just speculating that it will be "mass"). I've started a thread at Babel. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think we missed putting it onto Meta:Administrators. I'll go through all the admins now, and make up a list of those who don't meet criteria. Majorly talk 13:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well.... I guess it allowed "painless" removal of the dead wood (:)), they tend to cause a fuss still on Commons.... I was also aware of this issue. --Herby talk thyme 13:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- We're supposed to be using a similar system to commons, that removes all the voting. Seriously, you thought the confirmations were good? It's good to remove inactive people, but that can be done without a vote. Majorly talk 13:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think a different solution was proposed, but I think I might have been away for that as well. See the talk page. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- OK - must have missed that :( And there is me saying to folk how good Meta's confirmation process is - thanks & regards --Herby talk thyme 12:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
local oversighters
Are non-stewards allowed to run for local oversight rights? If we could split up the work dealing with all the abusive usernames, cf. allow the stewards to handle the crosswiki stuff (CUs, locks, etc) and let non-stewards suppress the logs, that should make it a lot more efficient. J.delanoygabsadds 05:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, non-stewards are allowed for running for oversight rights. Normally, lock&hide + suppresion is done within minutes (in fact, a bug is open requesting that all hidden usernames should be logged in Special:Log/suppress or at least, striked & grayed out which, I think, will solve the problem). I do not know if the current ammount of work requires more oversighters but I'm open to request it if the work starts to get more and more frecuent (unfortunatelly). —Dferg (talk) 10:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)