Wiktionary talk:Requests for permissions

From Wiktionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Desysopping policy[change]

Hello there all. I would like to begin talk about implementing a set policy on how we determine if a user gets desysopped or not. I believe that the following would be a good starting point:

  1. The user must be inactive with no actions for a period of a year or more or in cases of clear administrative tool abuse or abuse of power or the position.
  2. The user must be notified of such a desysop or proposal to desysop before one can proceed.
  3. In order for the user to be desysopped, 65% of the users voting must support the desysop. In other words, 65% support is needed.
  4. Anyone who has their flag removed in this manner (not for abuse) can request their flag(s) back at any point upon their return.

Is everyone in agreement with this? Cheers, Razorflame 03:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Just an addition:

  1. All desysopped users get back their tools on asking. PmlineditorTalk 15:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
    This definitely should not include administrators who were desysopped for abusing their tools. They will have to reapply and go through the whole RfA procedure all over again, as they have to re-earn the communitys' trust. Razorflame 19:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Support[change]

Support I think this makes sense and fits the votes we had so far which seem to be the concensus.

Note: I'm putting a link to this discussion both on the main RfA page as well as Simple Talk.Jamesofur (talk) 03:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Yup. No problems. PmlineditorTalk 08:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as I disagree with the desysoping of inactive admins. Tempodivalse [talk] 12:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
    This is just to get such a policy implemented on our Wiki. For you, I've included a clause under the first point that includes desysopping due to clear abuse of the administrative tools or the position of administrator. Hope this helps you to possibly reconsider. Razorflame 14:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I know you have issues with inactive dysysops and while I disagree with your reasoning I respect that. I do want to point out that this policy still requires an actual vote to dysysop anyone even if they are inactive.Jamesofur (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Good point, i didn't think of that. I still don't support inactivity desysoping, but as long as a community vote will still be held then I have no problems with this proposal. Changed to Support. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support as by my desysop requests. Barras (talk) 13:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Support unless there is a note that any admin who loses their flag due to inactivity can ask for it back without Rfa when they return. -Djsasso (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
    There is. PmlineditorTalk 15:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
    I don't see that up there at all... -Djsasso (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
    Added. It has been decided to reinstate their tools previously. PmlineditorTalk 15:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
    Am I not getting something? If we're going to give the user the flags back to the user without an RfA if and when they return, wouldn't it be easier to just let them keep their bits in the first place, instead of going through the hassle of removing and restoring rights? This just seems like an unnecessary procedure. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
    TDV, we're discussing the policy. Whether we support or oppose is a different issue... PmlineditorTalk
    The reason you take away and give back is that having inactive accounts with admin powers is a security risk. -Djsasso (talk) 15:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I have added such a clause. Razorflame 15:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose[change]

Comments[change]

  • Comment would anyone have a problem if we made the policy effective for all "advanced rights"? I'm just thinking as more of a catch all for Sysop/Crat/Importer maybe?/as well as checkuser/oversight if the project ever gets big enough to have their own. Jamesofur (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Would be ok for me. I think this was the original intention. Barras (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes, this was meant to include all flags. Of course, a higher percentage of support would be needed for the higher up flags like CU, Oversighter (both of which we won't be getting anytime soon), and others. I was thinking 75% support for those two usergroups. Cheers, Razorflame 19:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Result[change]

I believe that this is a great result of the talk. I believe that we have come up with a great set of desysopping procedures to use when we desysop/flag administrators and bureaucrats in the future.

The following is a summary of the clauses that have been agreed upon to be our desysopping procedures:

  1. The user must be inactive with no actions for a period of a year or more or in cases of clear administrative tool abuse or abuse of power or the position.
  2. The user must be notified of such a desysop or proposal to desysop before one can proceed.
  3. In order for the user to be desysopped, 65% of the users voting must support the desysop. In other words, 65% support is needed.
  4. Users who request their flags back and were desysopped due to inactivity only will be allowed to request their flags back if and when they should return to the Simple English Wiktionary.
  5. Administrators and bureaucrats who had their flags removed due to abuse of the power or the tools, or as a result of office actions, or for any reason other than inactivity will have to reapply an RfA and go through the RfA process all over again once they believe that they have regained the communitys' trust.

I just need to know if everyone is in agreement with these clauses for the desysopping procedure so that a steward can follow it in the instance of a desysop/deflag of a user. Razorflame 20:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I am in agreement with it. Maybe we should create a new page detailing the new policy, something like Wiktionary:Administrators/De-adminship? Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 20:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
That was the next thing that I was going to do here once everyone approved it. Razorflame 20:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Looks fine to me. No worries to create the policy page. Barras (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • looks good to me Jamesofur (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Same here. Pmlineditor  11:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Duration of RfXes[change]

Hello there all. I believe that we need to have a set amount of time for all RfXes so that the bureaucrats know when to close the requests. I believe the following would be a good rule of thumb:

  1. All RfXes shall last at least 7 days and no more then 14 days. After 7 days, a bureaucrat can declare that enough of the #:active userbase has voted to ensure.
  2. RfAs can only succeed if 65% or more editors support the candidate.
  3. RfBs can only succeed if 75% or more editors support the candidate.
  4. Bureaucrats use their discretion and judgement RfAs/RfBs are closed.
  5. If it is too close to call, all of the active bureaucrats have a discussion about whether or not the request should succeed or not.

Are these good for the durations of RfAs/RfBs? Razorflame 00:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I would think maybe give the crats a little more leeway maybe a minimum amount of time and a max?. All RfXes shall last at least 7 days and no more then 14 days. After 7 days a crat can declare that enough of the active userbase has voted to ensure the validity of the result and close the request.

The only reason I say this would be good is because I am worried about an RfX going up, everyone votes in a day or two and then it sits for 12 days until the 14day period is up.Jamesofur (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I echo Jamesofur. How about 60-65% is the b'crat discretion range for RfAs and 70-75% for RfBs? Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
The discretion would be how they would decide it if it was not too close to call. Razorflame 00:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok for me. Pmlineditor  11:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Local checkuser[change]

I'd like to suggest that, per this, there isn't a need for local checkusers and there shouldn't be for a long time. Only large wikis with 30+ active contributors have any need for it; at our current stage, this wiki needs a check performed maybe twice a year at best - and stewards can do it easily. I don't think we need a requests for checkuser section. Thoughts? Tempodivalse [talk] 03:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:17, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree too. Also, I think we should just block and not need to "checkuser". If there is a severe case of sockpuppety, it usually affects the other wikis first before us. Hydriz (talk) 03:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)