Moe Epsilon (talk | contribs) →Re-sysop request: resolved |
Rschen7754 (talk | contribs) →Desysop request for User:Nightscream: new section |
||
Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
::I thought so, just asked for clarification. Fair enough. '''~[[User:TheGeneralUser|<font color="DeepPink">TheGeneralUser</font>]] [[User talk:TheGeneralUser|<font color="DeepPink">(talk)</font>]]''' 15:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC) |
::I thought so, just asked for clarification. Fair enough. '''~[[User:TheGeneralUser|<font color="DeepPink">TheGeneralUser</font>]] [[User talk:TheGeneralUser|<font color="DeepPink">(talk)</font>]]''' 15:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC) |
||
:::{{done}} by [[User:WJBScribe|WJBScribe]]. Regards, — [[User:Moe Epsilon|<span style="color:royalblue; font-family: Segoe Script">Moe</span>]] [[User talk:Moe Epsilon|<span style="color:royalblue; font-family: Segoe Script">Epsilon</span>]] 17:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC) |
:::{{done}} by [[User:WJBScribe|WJBScribe]]. Regards, — [[User:Moe Epsilon|<span style="color:royalblue; font-family: Segoe Script">Moe</span>]] [[User talk:Moe Epsilon|<span style="color:royalblue; font-family: Segoe Script">Epsilon</span>]] 17:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC) |
||
== Desysop request for [[User:Nightscream]] == |
|||
Per [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Nightscream#Nightscream desysopped]], please desysop [[User:Nightscream]]. For the Arbitration Committee, '''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 01:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:28, 18 January 2014
|
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
For sensitive matters, you may contact an individual bureaucrat directly by e-mail.
The Bureaucrats' noticeboard is a place where items related to the Bureaucrats can be discussed and coordinated. Any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here. Please start a new section for each topic.
This is not a forum for grievances. It is a specific noticeboard addressing Bureaucrat-related issues. If you want to know more about an action by a particular bureaucrat, you should first raise the matter with them on their talk page. Please stay on topic, remain civil, and remember to assume good faith. Take extraneous comments or threads to relevant talk pages.
If you are here to report that an RFA or an RFB is "overdue" or "expired", please wait at least 12 hours from the scheduled end time before making a post here about it. There are a fair number of active bureaucrats; and an eye is being kept on the time remaining on these discussions. Thank you for your patience.
To request that your administrator status be removed, initiate a new section below.
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DreamRimmer | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Open | 10:02, 4 June 2024 | 6 days, 5 hours | no | report |
It is 04:30:22 on May 29, 2024, according to the server's time and date. |
Wouldn't a desysop be warranted?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Moved from talkpage
I don't mean to kick an editor while their down, but wouldn't the circumstances surrounding Wikifione and SarahSteirch warrant at least consideration of desysopping? 108.45.104.69 (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- I have no knowledge of this situation, but there are a limited number of circumstances where bureaucrats may remove administrative privileges. See Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Removal of permissions. Also, this probably belongs overleaf. –xenotalk 14:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Presumably referring to this. QuiteUnusual (talk) 14:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a precedent, see (User talk:Nichalp#Paid editing and Zithan [1]) but it is something ArbCom would need to decide - bureaucrats do not have the authority to desysop on their own initiative. In my opinion, there is a distinction to be drawn at the moment between these two users: Wifione has responded to the allegations of paid editing made, denied them and invited the Community to review his edits. SarahSteirch has remained silent regarding the issues and not responded to questions raised on her talkpage. WJBscribe (talk) 15:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
To echo what other bureaucrats have said, there is limited circumstances where they make the decision to sysop, resysop and desysop an account. This probably doesn't fall under one of those times. A bureaucrat is to the consensus of the community through its appropriate processes, and I don't see that here. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 18:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- That's rather interesting. So what your saying is even in cases of an extreme violation of one of Wikipedia's policies your hands are tied? If the offense was bad enough for them to lose their job, then certainly the admin tools should be revoked...at least temporarily. This case gives the impression that if the user is liked well enough, then the rules don't matter. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- What policy was violated? 2601:A:2500:2A9:1D4D:AEDA:BFDF:3204 (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- The appearance of it isn't particularly relevant; we can't desysop someone without their or Arbcom's request no matter who it is, what they did, or how much we like or dislike them. That's the task that has been given to us by the community, and doing anything more would seriously overstep our bounds, which is not at all the job of a 'crat. If there was truly an extreme (as in actual emergency, not as in you really really want to) need to desysop someone, you can always contact a steward; emergency removals of advanced permissions is their job, not ours. (As a side note, I'm not sure that "they got fired" is relevant to calling for a desysop for anyone, even if the organization doing the firing is the WMF.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) If there's a real violation of core WP policies (like the Pillars) the Bureaucrats are able to do a lot. However the Paid Editing issue is at best a Guideline at this point. Your haranging around here trying to get a emergency desysop, haven't engaged the users about this concern, haven't opened a AN discussion thread, haven't petitioned ArbCom for the emergency desysop that is in the procedure. In general doing everything but following policy. We select bureaucrats for the reason that they are very hesitant to exercise their privileges in creative ways. Hasteur (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Either paid editing is allowed here or it isn't. Several editors have been banned for doing it and Sarah lost her job because she was accused of doing it. So if its not a policy and not a big deal, then we should accept it and move on and give her the job back. Same with dropping the issue with Wifione and the others that have been blocked in the past. As for the desysopping, I find it almost funny that when some admins do a task the community doesn't like they are calling for their head but others are having their talk pages covered in get well cards. This folks is why people don't stay. Obvious and blatant double standards being applied to some editors over others. Admins police the community, crat's should have the power to police the admins and deal with them as appropriate, arbcom should deal with Rogue bureaucrats. It shouldn't take Arbcom to remove the tools if the user no longer has the trust of the community. Its also not my responsibility to police admins, that is the responsibility of Arbcom and the bureaucrats and they have failed to do it so I dropped a subtle note. Its also not necessary to contact the user, they are not responding to any comments and not editing. Anyway, its clear it doesn't matter and no one cares and I am just "haranging" for suggesting that an admin who violated the communities trust be desysopped so I'm dropping it. But its cases like this that strain Wikipedia's credibility when they say they enforce rules evenly and fairly. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- There's a vast gulf between "should have" and "do have"; there's also a vast gulf between "having the technical ability to do a thing" and "actually being allowed to do a thing". Whether I believe that 'crats should have the ability to police admins or not, the fact is that we don't. Policing admins is explicitly not, and never has been, a job of the 'crats. As established by consistent community consensus. And that's really all there is to say. And again, don't confuse Wikipedia and the WMF; Sarah's job is not ours to give back. The WMF's decision was based on the WMF's own rules and principles, not enwiki's. < Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- What you think bureaucrats should be differs very much from what bureaucrats actually are. They are not police, they never have been and never will be. They act according to what the community wants through its processes (such as RFA) and uses their buttons to verify it. We didn't elect them beat admins with a billystick when a couple of IPs think they did a no-no. ArbCom is the place to take this, if you want to talk about their adminship. If you want to talk about their job, then take it to the WMF, because 'crats can't control that either. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 03:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Either paid editing is allowed here or it isn't. Several editors have been banned for doing it and Sarah lost her job because she was accused of doing it. So if its not a policy and not a big deal, then we should accept it and move on and give her the job back. Same with dropping the issue with Wifione and the others that have been blocked in the past. As for the desysopping, I find it almost funny that when some admins do a task the community doesn't like they are calling for their head but others are having their talk pages covered in get well cards. This folks is why people don't stay. Obvious and blatant double standards being applied to some editors over others. Admins police the community, crat's should have the power to police the admins and deal with them as appropriate, arbcom should deal with Rogue bureaucrats. It shouldn't take Arbcom to remove the tools if the user no longer has the trust of the community. Its also not my responsibility to police admins, that is the responsibility of Arbcom and the bureaucrats and they have failed to do it so I dropped a subtle note. Its also not necessary to contact the user, they are not responding to any comments and not editing. Anyway, its clear it doesn't matter and no one cares and I am just "haranging" for suggesting that an admin who violated the communities trust be desysopped so I'm dropping it. But its cases like this that strain Wikipedia's credibility when they say they enforce rules evenly and fairly. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- What policy was violated? 2601:A:2500:2A9:1D4D:AEDA:BFDF:3204 (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Re-sysop request
Hello bureaucrats, I have been inactive for a little over year, so admin permissions were suspended. Please could they be re-instated? Many thanks, Splash - tk 09:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Looks fine after the customary hold period. –xenotalk 15:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- As the 24-hour mark has (long since) passed without objection, I've restored the admin bit. Welcome back, Splash! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
The RfA is now due by about 15 hours. Is there any bureaucrat discussion that is likely to happen ? ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- Whilst I'm biased as the nominator, the RFA is clearly a pass and I see no reason why there would be a need for a 'crat chat. At 85%, and with some opposes being somewhat reluctant and some well voiced strong support (including from editors who have revisited the RFA after oppose comments) it's pretty obvious what the outcome is. And the usual reminder, that the end time is just the minimum the RFA must run; I'm sure someone will be along shortly to do the honours. Pedro : Chat 15:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- I thought so, just asked for clarification. Fair enough. ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Desysop request for User:Nightscream
Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Nightscream#Nightscream desysopped, please desysop User:Nightscream. For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 01:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)