Steward requests/Permissions

==== Username@xxproject ====
{{sr-request
 |status = <!-- Don't change this line -->
 |domain = <!-- Such as en.wikibooks -->
 |user name = 
 |discussion= 
}}
(your remarks) ~~~~

==== User name@xxproject ====
{{sr-request
 |status = <!--don't change this line-->
 |domain =
 |user name =
 |discussion= 
}}

In the last week, the 1 bot Admin on cyws (Welsh Wikisource) has been taken from the bot, leaving room for a new, second, permanent Admin. The discussions on local wikisource was 100% in agreement for Alwyn to become a permanent Admin.. Reasons: for developing cyws, renaming pages, importing specialised code for fonts and other transcription formatting etc. This can be only done by an Admin. Your [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Permissions/Minimum_voting_requirements Requirements' does not mention this scenario, these rights. No reasonable reason has been given for limiting the number of Admins. In fact, the discussion by ws editors mentions that all appointments should be made locally, and not globally by Meta. Please link to any discussions on this matter. Alwyn has more edits on cyws than any other editor. Not giving him permanent Admin status will result in Alwyn (and the rest of us) leaving cy-WS; this is not a threat but a statement of fact, outlined in the linked ws discussion and elsewhere (Twitter etc). Llywelyn2000 (talk) 08:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

All these discussion are quite old. Ruslik (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

A few months. The 100% support for Adminship, and my above reasons, and all comments are equally valid regardless of time. @Ruslik0: Can you explain in what way is your comment helpful? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 03:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

We consider "A few months" to be stale RFP. People's conduct changes, and the same person who could pass RFA few months ago could not pass tonight. (Generally speaking. Not about this case.) It could also be stacking up RFP votes forever until they have enough support vote. (Generally unnecessary for RFA because for adminship it just needs no oppose votes.) — regards, Revi 03:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

As you can see 'no oppose votes' (or comments for that matter) were given. So the fact that this ongoing application was started a few months ago, doesn't effect the application? Secondly jfyi - Alwyn's 6 months temp Adminship has just come to an end. Hence this application. Another temp Adminship is not requested; this is for permanent Admin rights only. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

No, the fact that it is months old is a full stop here. It has to be recent, preferably max a month or two (people forget to file SRP, we can accept slightly old RFPs but this is way too old discussion). Whether perma-admin or temp-admin is requested here does not matter in this case. — regards, Revi 05:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

• Support - Minority language Wikis don't tend to have the same strength in depth as English Wikipedia and allowances need to be made accordingly. Deb (talk) 12:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

This is not a RFP page and votes cast here is not considered. — regards, Revi 12:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

In addition it appears to be the same discussion that was used once to grant a temp adminship. It should be considered closed now. Ruslik (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

• I don't understand the problem. In the last 9 months I have created 50 books to readable standard on Wicidestun and uploaded many more books, some via a scanner bought and paid for by Wiki UK, to enable me to create more content on Wicidestun. As an individual my percentage of contributions would make me a Global Steward if those contributions had been in English or other large languages! Your lack of understanding of the needs of lesser used languages is disappointing! I am basically the ONLY contributor to this wiki and need to be an administrator to keep it going in the face of opposition to fom imperialistic arrogance AlwynapHuw (talk)

Actually, Steward-ship requires more of a janitorial work dealing with spambots, trolls, and other administrative works rather than content work. Also, don't worry about my "understanding of the need of lesser used languages"- while I don't speak it, I know some folks from Jeju language, which have FAR less speaker than Welsh (enwiki reports 800K for Welsh, and 5K for Jeju).

So to reiterate, as we tell you from {{Systmp}} (the template to mark SRPs as done; see examples section), you need to "start another election a few days before your temporary access expires" and use the NEW election for a NEW SRP. This is how things work in SRP and smaller wikis. — regards, Revi 08:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

The only way we will grant you adminship (either temp or perma):

1. Start a new RFA.
2. Link it here. We will start 7 days counter.
3. After 7 days, we will see if there's an opposition on candidate.
4. If there is none, and we see no concerns about you, we will grant you the right (either temp or perma).
5. If you are granted temp-sysop, repeat 1~4 each time temp-sysop expires.

We are not going to grant you adminship otherwise, however hard you try to convince us. Even I (as a Steward) am subject to the same requirement, i.e. SRP 2020-07. Yes, I've been through 7 RfAs, even if that sounds bureaucratic. That's how it works. — regards, Revi 08:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, Please renew my sysop and interface-admin right on thwikisource. A local discussion started since 14 April 2022. (1st SRP/A) Bebiezaza (talk) 04:07, 29 April 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

I request the suspension of administrator access of User:Zhxy 519 until the desysop process for User:Zhxy 519 on zhwikisource ends. Reason: He blocks another administrator User:Jusjih on zhwikisource for submitting a formal desysop request of User:Zhxy 519 himself following the desysop process. This is absolutely unacceptable behaviour for an administrator on a small wiki. Midleading (talk) 10:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

Please see Requests for comment/Global de-adminship for Jusjih,and Midleading is suspicious for ignoring discussions and covering Jusjih. Jusjih is blocked in zhws due to the rule: deliberately abusing de-adminship votes. And according to the same rule, Midleading cannot come to ask for urgent suspension without community or sysop consensus.--Zhxy 519 (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

I wonder who could judge what is "deliberately abusing de-adminship votes"?--Cmsth11126a02 (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

Similar question: Even if there is a previous sysop consensus (or to call a judge) on "communication failure" but still Midleading is not coming out to stop Jusjih. So why judge does not do their job? Zhxy 519 (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

There is evidence that the community may consider actions of Zhxy 519 inappropriate, for example, other users from zhwikisource community are coming here to question Zhxy 519 and undo his blanking of desysop request. So there is a clear need to proceed the desysop process, but Zhxy 519 is threatening the free speech of the community. Remark that he did not start his de-adminship request of Jusjih through the process in zhwikisource. --Midleading (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

I give all reasons here in s:zh:Wikisource:写字间#可不可能向二位固執用戶溝通 for what I have done and contacted all involved including you. I never blocked you all for just discussing and you can still refute me, even now ongoing. You are exaggerating and just failed to give reasonable responses. Zhxy 519 (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

FYI: The block log of Jusjih. SCP -20 00 14:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

Oh my, Chinese Wikisource certainly has the worst relationship between administrators that I've ever seen. Almost every active administrators on zhwikisource are into the local dispute. I recommend stewards think very carefully before acting. —— Eric Liu _{(Talk )} 21:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

Zhxy 519 has been resisting the reform of RFDA process for almost a year since last RFDA. Zhxy 519 casted doubt on the plan proposed by Jusjih and demanded further discussion (See contributions of Zhxy 519, he have been doing almost nothing else during this time). I have been trying to maintain a neutral position. As the administrators are accusing each other, I try to seek input from other users of zhws through discussions and voting (Zhxy 519 have stopped every votes proposed by Jusjih immediately). From my experience, Zhxy 519 seems to have lost trust by zhws community, but I need to confirm that through voting on zhws. However his most recent action of blocking Jusjih and blanking the RFDA page is plainly unacceptable. It makes uninvolved administrator who undos his actions looks like involved (steward, you will look like having been involved as well, but we need your power), paralysing the zhws community. The actions of Zhxy 519 violated the policy on zhws as the minimum requirement of speedy termination of RFDA is not satisfied. I can't think of a reason this should be allowed. Zhxy 519 now probably wants to continue this discussion on meta, where many users of zhws cannot participate and potential participants don't know what have been happening on zhws, due to language barriers. Zhxy 519 accuses many active editors on zhws to be members of "an underground group" in Requests for comment/Global de-adminship for Jusjih<nowiki>. This is totally unfounded. If they leave zhws (some participants of last RFDA request had already left), the community of zhws will be much weaker than now. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Midleading (talk)

Oh, it was your responsibility to stop Jusjih's manipulation since you were one of the sysops agreed on last consensus, where were you? I can show you The consensus requested by stewards has proved you are wrong. I never said they are underground group, stop lying. And lastly, when Jusjih trying to de-admin 2 sysops at the same time, I didn't see you come out to say "the community of zhws will be much weaker", but when the problematic users are just mentioned, you want keep them to "save the community", interesting.--Zhxy 519 (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

That consensus was last year. Since then much have changed. A new policy of RFDA is adopted, and most recently Zhxy 519 blocked Jusjih. Could you please let other people speak by keeping the RFDA page open and unblock Jusjih, please?--Midleading (talk) 01:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

You can speak, and Jusjih can speak as well. If they can prove their innocence, of course they have no reason to be blocked. We can refute each other, if only we are reasonable. Zhxy 519 (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

And last year? Jusjih didn't change their way of abuse in this year, and consensus faced no challenge on zhws and not a harmful one, why shouldn't it be followed?--Zhxy 519 (talk) 01:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

We need to talk in an equal, open and formal process defined by the policy recently adopted by zhws community, not in an atomsphere where the formal request is blanked by you and proposer is blocked by you. And we need to invite not only administrators but also community members of zhws to discuss the matter on that formal RFDA request, and decide on a resolution which is accepted by both administrators and community members. I'm not requesting to remove your administrator access permenantly without community consensus here, I'm just taking necessary steps to ensure a dialogue among administrators and community members can happen. This is not overriding it with a consensus among administrators last year, nor forcing people to speak on their user talk page while they are blocked without the ability to reach a consensus with each other through the RFDA process. If you can understand this is important, undo your recent actions and let the RFDA process resume until it concludes or meets the minimum requirement of speedy termination, there is no need to suspend your administrator access now. Otherwise I need to request the steward to suspend your administrator access so that you won't be able to abuse the right to block other people. --Midleading (talk) 02:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

You know what, you are threatening under the eyes of stewards. You are equal to me, but you never talked so much like you are doing here. Jusjih never made formal RFDA, as they deliberately abused it due to both the rule and consensus, calling it formal makes you tend to cover Jusjih. Every time when Gzdavidwong and me explaining to you, what was your reaction? Denying then ignoring. You played so unfair and throwing your responsibility to "community". To make it more clever, why wouldn't you keep silent from first? Everyone can talk in Zhws, but not to ignore others saying and pressing like Jusjih. If someone is blocked, it is normal to speak only on their talkpages during the blockage, what are you doubting? Zhxy 519 (talk) 03:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

Comment Comment If it's true that Chinese Wikisource certainly has the worst relationship between administrators that I've ever seen. then all administrators, include Jusjih, Gzdavidwong and Midleading as always seen on zh.wikisource's VP, should also be listed below on this same SRP page. Yet I agree that only listing Zhxy 519 is not fair for us. Should I do so? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

Procedural note: Stewards are internally discussing this @ stewards mailing list. — regards, Revi 06:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

• Steward requests
• Log of changes to user rights
• Log of global rights-related changes
• Steward handbook
• Users that have signed confidentiality agreement for nonpublic personal data
• Archives
  • 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023
  • 2024: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09

• Steward requests
• Meta-Wiki requests