csherlock(a)ljh.com.au a écrit:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
I de-sysoped 172, as he seems to have managed to
start Wikipedia's first
Blocking War. The problem is, I haphazardly blocked 3 other admins too,
and one of them's mad at me.
I wish Snowspinner had e-mailed me or met me in talk first; he's put in
a RFA instead. Well, I can't say I didn't deserve it.
It all has to do with the 3RR, sock-puppets and global warming. Any two
of which is enough to push people's buttons in Our Town.
Or is it Peyton Place?
Ed Poor
Out of interest, was their an RFC filed on this administrator before
this action was carried out? Shouldn't there be a more transparent and
formal process in place when it comes to desysoping admins?
TBSDY
There is a clear process to desysop people; It is (ahum) on
*technically* possible to developers and stewards.
Developers can do it in case of urgency.
But normally it is done by stewards.
The current stewards are
* Andre Engels (en, nl, de, fr, nds, ...)
* Angela (en)
* Anthere (fr, en)
* ArnoLagrange (fr, eo, en, es, it, de, ...)
* Daniel Mayer (en, es)
* Fantasy (en, de, it, fr, es)
* Karl Wick (en, es)
* Looxix (fr, en, nl)
Stewards can set or remove status from anyone, on any projects. The
transparency is ensured through the bureaucrat log on meta. Requests for
status are also made on meta, publicly :
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_permissions
Stewards are not supposed to desysoped anyone just because they feel
like it; They do it after community agreement, and there is a sorta rule
that a steward avoid doing so in his own language project (for example,
Fantazy avoids desysoping people on german, and Mav would avoids on
en... when it is a community decision, not a personal request...).
We desysoped a couple of people in the past year. Some on en, a serious
lot on de, very recently on ja. And a good bunch of tired wikipedians in
need of a break.
In short, except for urgency, no desysoping should take place on the
english wikipedia without first arbcom decision.
Ed was able to do it essentially because he still had the developer
flag. But he was not really supposed to do so.
The flag is now removed - not as a punishment - as it is not me to judge
whether there was indeed urgency.
But as a technical clean-up, as Ed is now not a developer any more.
I might add that Uncle Ed had held that role for a long time before
stewards were elected : running sql queries to make people sysop or
remove this status. So, I really do not hold grunge against him. All
this is rather a mistake from us.
Anthere