|Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2012, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.|
Archive in progress
Is this "on hold" on every resignation/removal request really needed. Stewards are aware that they should wait a bit before fulfilling such requests. I don't think that it is needed, that there is on every request a " On hold for 24 hours" line. Just a thought, -Barras talk 19:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I want to know which was the previous page to this one: "central page to request permissions (sysop status)" before 21 March 2004. I appreciate any info. I am searching info about the permissions of the first sysops in spanish wikipedia, between 2003-2004. Thanks. --AeroPsico (talk) 15:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Meta:Bureaucrat log (Archivo): Esta página a lo mejor te ayuda, pero no sé si encontrarás lo que buscas. Si no, lo más fácil probablemente sería buscar por los archivos de CAB y/o las discusiones de los usuarios. Saludos, Savhñ 18:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- No, Savh. Antes de junio de 2004 no hay registros (me he matado buscando) y a los primeros biblios se les daba el flag aquí directamente, que es lo que busca Aero. Además, solo aparece en algunas discusiones, pero la mayoría no contiene es información. Saludos. --Andreateletrabajo (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Notice to the Stewards about Wikidata
I just wanted to give you all a heads up that the first RfAs on Wikidata are set to close tomorrow, November 6th. The requests are all over at the page Wikidata:Requests for permissions.
I'm not sure where you all want to draw the line as to what constitutes "significant support" for the project, but my personal observation (to be taken with a grain of salt, being that I am currently running) is that there are three groups. There's the "runaway support" people, some of whom have 20+ support votes, there's the "decent amount of support" people, with between 7 and 15 support votes, and then there's the "not really supported people" with three or four supports. There are almost no oppose votes. Obviously since I'm in the middle group right now I have a perceived conflict of interest in recommending that the people in the "decent amount of support" group be given the mop, however I'm going to recommend this anyways, in large part because it looks almost certain that anyone appointed in 2012 will have to go through a one-time re-confirmation vote three months after they get the mop. This means the community will have a second chance to look people over, hopefully without having to look over 40 at once, and that will give us a chance to re-assess the admins with a "decent amount of support" the first time around.
Please also note that there is a Steward, Vituzzu, currently running for admin over at Wikidata. If you all are going to decide where the boundaries are as a group, that might be worth knowing.
- Hi, thanks for letting us know, we've been already keeping an eye on it. Snowolf How can I help? 19:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Besides, note that it's not a yes or no alternative; stewards could as well decide to give out some "normal" adminships and temp adminship to the less supported candidates, or only temp adminship but with higher and lower expiry to the two groups, etc. --Nemo 14:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- I was unaware the such things as "temp adminship" existed. All adminships on Wikidata right now (with the exception of WMDE staff, who won't take admin actions but have the mop for technical reasons) are temporary, per Wikidata talk:Administrators#Reconfirmation for initial wave of admins, which is currently the most heavily supported proposal on the project (and so can be considered "happening" even though it hasn't been closed yet). This is also Sven Manguard (talk) 15:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)