Requests for comment/الباحث@ar Wikipedia rights removal

The following request for comments is closed. The request was successfully resolved.

الباحث@ar Wikipedia

Due to several issues regarding the Arabic Wikipedia administrator "الباحث" (explained there), a discussion with voting has been done, proposing the removal of his administrative status. You can view it from this link (Google automatic translation). As you can see, the results of the voting are: 21 votes with, 7 votes against, and 7 votes neutral with the removal of access.

Language Code: ar
Local Confirmation/Request Link: Discussion
Local User Page: ar:User:الباحث

Thank you. MK 10:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not counting neutral votes, there's a 75% support for desysopping the user. What does your policy say regarding this? --FiLiP ¤ 10:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AR Wiki doesn't have a policy for desysopping, but users must get at least 75% of the supporting votes to become sysops. --MK 10:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done --FiLiP ¤ 11:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As MK says ar wp has no policy for desysopping. "users must get at least 75% of the supporting votes to become sysops," this is for sysopping only. the voting (!) page does not list the result yet. The community has not agreed regarding this issue. I request the reinstating of rights until the community agrees. Funny enough is that MK himself refuses to grant rights to a user because he thinks neutral votes should be counted as against sysopping. The issue goes back to April 2006 and the page still does not tell the result. I wonder why voting here finished yesterday and a request was made before listing the result there, while the other issue no one cares about. In any case please reinstate the rights until ar wp community agrees on the issue. Санта Клаус 15:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, what, if there's no desysop policy, no one can get desysopped? I consulted a prominent member of the community and just cleared my doubts. I stand by my "decision" --FiLiP ¤ 15:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that we don't know which votes to count and how to count them and what to do with the result. This request is premature. The policy MK relies on is irrelevant (sysopping only). When the commutiy agrees how to handle this issue a request can be made here. Санта Клаус 15:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi i am the "الباحث" i really dont have problems with removal of my administrative status but atleast we must make the commutiy agrees about this without that it will be unfair and with canceld the votes of neutrals so think we must let the commutiy agrees how to handle this issue it will be more justice and better for all of us Q8wall 16:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have only one comment on this: Санта Клаус is trolling. No one in arwiki objected on the desysop except الباحث himself (who is now blocked on arwiki by admin OsamaK for violating 3RR rule) and even if anyone objects the issue can be discussed locally where الباحث may be resysopped by another bureaucrat, so, no further steward action is requested. Thanks. --Meno25 18:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"even if anyone objects the issue can be discussed locally," which is what everyone deserves at ar wp. Your COI with الباحث are well know there - what is the relevance of mentioning his block? Why do voting pages on ar wp state the result (example) but not this one? State the result there, make sure a consensus is reached about how to count! then anyone can submit a request here. There are what I consider spa; user:Jordan123 contributed nothing during 2008 but votes and personal attacks for which he was blocked. The last line of his userpage says: tens of articles from multiple accounts. Don't you think a CU is warranted? Let's discuss things there then come back here. Санта Клаус 19:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i just want to solve it with the commutiy also i feel so sad and unfair because of that in the other hand all my demand is solve it with the commutiy then we will come here esey not the opeset and really i dont sad for the adminship because its just work and i allready done alot of my work... so doing this without community is not fair atleast for me and its up to you to make it with comutiy deside Q8wall 19:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am translating what MK wrote on user:Meno25 page [1] as it helps illustrate the situation. MK or Meno25 can correct me. Cp Google.

It seems there is an objection to the issue [desysopping]. All I have done is to transfer the voting result to Meta (I was about to do it even if it was 60% so a steward there can decide as we don't have a specific percentage for desysopping). I have not yet stated my opinion on the matter of desysopping الباحث but I respect the voting result.

As far as I know, this is no stewards' business yet. Please revert. Санта Клаус 00:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to take the conversation to Requests for comments if you wish to continue it on Meta, but the decision regarding deadminship on your wiki should be determined by consensus there, not here. The action has been performed already. With the lack of a local ArbCom and lack of local policy, stewards have to make due with what consensus seems to bear. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do nothing (and undo pending a local discussion) until the local community reaches a consensus. Санта Клаус 11:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very Honorable Stewards. As Meno25 said: Санта Клаус is trolling. You can see his contributions on wp-ar. Thank you very much. --DrFO.Jr.Tn 11:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Kylu already said, this discussion is closed. If you see any need to discuss that furthermore, please go to RFC. --Thogo (talk) 11:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know this discussion shouldn't be here at all, but as it says above "To request the removal of another user's status, you must gain consensus on the local wiki first." Санта Клаус 11:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Would anyone (esp 3rd parties) kindly comment on the discussion above copied from permissions? Санта Клаус 13:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per your request: I don't count my opinion for much as regards issues on other projects, but I believe the following:

Policy pages are descriptive, not proscriptive: That is, they describe the current policy instead of mandating them. Policy in a community that operates by consensus is determined by that community.
Stewards have to act based on the consensus in a community as best they can in absence of a community-endorsed policy.
In the event that a desysopping is performed, especially when due to behavioral issues, unless a local ArbCom rules otherwise (barring a user from running for adminship, for instance) the desysopped user should regain his permission by following the existing local procedures, not simply by requesting that stewards reverse a good-faith action.

I hope that helps. ~Kylu (u|t) 15:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re 1, ar wp has no desysopping policy; we are just starting to discuss one. What matters is 2.

2, we have no consensus on this issue so far. MK, who have not commented on my translation above, just hoped a steward would make the right decision! See above.

3 is irrelevant due to 1 & 2 imo. A good-faith action should be reverted if incorrect.

Санта Клаус 16:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stewards don't sysop users on wikis with bureaucrats, which Arabic Wikipedia has. If the steward action is incorrect, the local bureaucrats will have to correct it. This is explained in the steward policy, which you've already read. ~Kylu (u|t) 17:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Stewards don't sysop users on wikis with bureaucrats," neither should they desysop with no local community consensus. "If the steward action is incorrect," I expect a steward to correct it. We have one inactive crat, and an active one who thinks stewards should decide on such issues! Санта Клаус 19:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you say there was/is no consensus. Others see it differently. Me included. What are we gonna do now? --FiLiP ¤ 19:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think there was/is consensus? Санта Клаус 19:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

75% votes in favor pretty much speaks for itself. --FiLiP ¤ 19:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What if the communtiy decides that desysopping is only possible at 80%? How do you know it's 75%? This is why there is no result yet on the voting page. As I said above to MK, "State the result there, make sure a consensus is reached about how to count! then anyone can submit a request here." The community hasn't yet decided how to treat neutral votes! And what if we realize that voting is evil? The key issue is that MK thinks that a "neutral" steward should decide as we don't seem to agree on how to count, let alone reach a consensus! Санта Клаус 19:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be blunt here: We work with what we've got, and lack of policy doesn't mean that anything goes. If the community decides that desysopping is only possible at 80%, then you have local bureaucrats that can "correct" the decision for you. Until you do come up with some sort of local determination, the stewards can only do the best job they have with the information at hand. If you don't like the policy, implement one local to Arabic Wikipedia that states differently. ~Kylu (u|t) 21:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

75% is enough: there's a clear community' consensus, I totally agree with Kylu and Dungodung. This request should be closed, if any local 'crat wants to re-sysop him... none of our business! So, closing. --Nick1915 -^{all you want} 02:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea why the ar page doesn't say 75%? Do you know about spas and socks? The main point, which I am sorry to repeat and repeat, is that the only active crat just delegated this issue to Meta. Санта Клаус 08:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be closed due to its pointlessness. Arwiki has their own b'crats. Bit regaining is no steward business. And for other points, I concur with Kylu and Nick. --Aphaia 02:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you come from a big wiki with more than one active crat. Ours doesn't even like to talk! An error on Meta should be corrected by Meta. When we have community consensus your help is appreciated. Санта Клаус 08:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe you should elect a new bureaucrat? --FiLiP ¤ 11:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steward Nick1915 has closed RfC, see Requests for permissions#الباحث@ar Wikipedia:

Suggested course of action:

Elect a new bureaucrat, if the current bureaucrat on Arabic Wikipedia is inactive.
Reason: As there are local bureaucrats (even inactive ones), Stewards have no reason to add rights.

Reason: Single bureaucrats should not be forced to assume roles of responsibility for the community. The community they serve makes the decision, the bureaucrats simply implement them.
Implement a local desysopping policy on Arabic Wikipedia.
Reason: A coherent local policy developed from the consensus of the community will help prohibit further confusion over situations such as this.

Thank you for your concerns regarding this matter. ~Kylu (u|t) 15:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]