Meta:Babel/Archives/2009-11

Strange Admin behaviour on Meta

Hello Wikimedians,

I would like to get some opinions about the behaviour for a admin called user:GerardM here on Meta, his behaviour makes me doubt about the AGF and about the Wikimedia believes and I really thinks this kind of behaviour cant be accepted when it is a admin where we are talking about.

• This admin likes to close pages for anonymous editing because he thinks the ip edits are not good enough (quote from irc the anonymous edits are the most obnoxious and destructive), he protected pages against cowards multiple times, but we most not forget that those cowards are our future.

• Protecting the request pages will make sure people need to get autoconfirmed before commenting, this will cause that people need to wait for 4 days before they can edit it and people will give up because they need to wait. And we need the new users for the new pages.

• According the Gerard he is protecting them because he is working in the langcom (quote from irc and I administer the language policy) the strange thing is that I cant find something in the policy that says we cant have a ano editing in a discussion.

• According to his talkpage this user is better than any ip user editing here on Meta (User_talk:GerardM#Recent_coments) what makes me believe he isn't fit for the job because nobody can be better than all ip users.

Now let us ask the question, do we really want admins here that totally assume bad faith and places attacks towards ip users. But more important do we want to keep all ip users out a discussion that would make a big difference in the creation or approval for a new project, I do believe that not everybody with a opinion want to make a account or make a account and wait for 4 days. And I think its very strange that a administrator can just protect stuff without a policy to support it. I can totally understand that we don't want ip to vote but there opinion can be good and isn't it the believe for Wikimedia that everybody can edit?

Best regards, Huib talk 11:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I fully agree. He protected recently a project page that was updated by anons. The edits where fully ok. Therefore, there wasn't/ isn't a reason to protect it. I decided to unprotect the page, even if I know (and I don't don't that normally) that it means I overruled an other admin's decission. We had the same problem with the deletion of a pic that he restored. It was a commons duplicate and so there was no reason to keep. His use of admin tools are not acceptable. I think should go through a re-election. --Barras 12:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

What edit is better or more constructive is a matter of opinion. Most IP-edits I see are less improvement than edits by registered users, but there are also many valuable contributions by IPs. To refer to all IP-users as "anonymous cowards" is far off the truth, certainly for an admin. If it is correct what you say about unnecessary protections, this admin should be told not to use his admin rights in this way. Woudloper 12:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

GerardM has had some issues with his use of admin tools. This should be discussed on Meta:Babel, and perhaps determine if he is still trusted in this role. Majorly talk 14:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I often take issue with Gerard's behaviour and I don't think an examination of whether the community still trusts him in this role would be amiss. However, to be fair, I'm pretty sure the protection reason about "no edits from anonymous cowards" or whatever was referring to a particular user who had logged out to evade scrutiny. I could be wrong, but the point remains that there are redeeming factors - we should weigh them as a community.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 14:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Moved to Meta:Babel#Strange__Admin_behavoir_on_Meta Huib talk 14:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Abigor for not looking at the situation at hand. I protected a page that is a policy page of the language committee.. It had been changed by an anonymous coward and made the requirements from only the requirement of translating the "most used" messages to all messages core and WMF extensions. These pages are for the language committee to edit alone.

You may also have noticed that on the request for new languages is also a policy page for the process of adding new languages. When you do your research you will find that there are many hot button issues. It is really easy to troll people anonymously. This is what has happened a lot. When you have to stand up for your right to discuss this, it makes the tone appreciatively more civil.

Thank you for your good faith and your deep research in the issue, GerardM 15:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Gerard sorry but I think I did my homework and you're making a mistake here, the last discussion about request for closing projects on Foundation-l you stated that the language commite wasn't involved in request for closure for projects but now you say that the request page that you protected can only be edited by langcom members. As far as I see it the page isn't a langcom page and therefor was your protection with comment crossing the line and total misuse of your admin buttons.

To show I did my homework the second time you used to word coward was when you protected this page, again a page about closure and not about creating.

In case you forgot it, here is the link where you stated that the langcom wasn't about closing projects.

After this I spoke to a other member of the LangCom and he stated that most of the protections weren't needed and that ip opinions would be accepted on the discussion pages it even sounded like he didn't even know your protections.

Therefor I think its time to discuss your adminrights since you misused your adminrights when you started protecting pages that didn't need to be protected. Huib talk 15:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

My last block was 10:27, 14 November 2009 GerardM (talk | contribs | block) protected "Language committee/Status/wp/kiu" [edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) [move=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) ‎

We are talking about different things apparantly.. don´t you think that new languages and closed languages atrackt the same kind of trolls ? You are right when you say that the language committee does not determine the policy of closing wikis. However, they should go in the incubator .... and then become part of the language committee again ...

When this other language committee member states that opinions of anonymous people are considered, then he forgets that once the discussion stage is passed, no opinions are considered. However, that does not stop the postering. GerardM 16:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I did say "anonymous coward" not coward ... This phrase is used on slashdot where all anonymous contributions are welcomed and attributed to "anonymous coward" ... makes a bit of a differece doesn't it ? Thanks, GerardM 17:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The last problem (before this one here) was his usage of the deletion tool link. I'm not sure if his admin actions here are really good ones. I think it would be the best for GerardM to go through a reconfirmation to see if he still has the trust by the community. Moreover, I think this would be easier then discussing here, because I think there is not only one discusable adminaction. Just my thoughts. --Barras 18:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This headline is missleading, to me it suggests admins on Meta generally behave strange... maybe so, maybe not. I do trust GerardM, there might be a certain frustration level at some point but understandable and I still think he does good work for the language committee. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 20:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I disagree with undoing the protection added by GerardM on Proposals for closing projects, IMHO the only strange admin behaviour that can be observed, is that admins communicate on the version history and not like it would be much more polite on the user-talk-page when undoing an action... .oO( maybe the other admin had a good reason to do so, etc.) IMHO the protection of this page was overdue anyway and should have been done already long ago. --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 20:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I need the tools back

I became sysop here in march (see Meta:Requests for adminship/Finnrind), was fairly active for a while and then had a looong break. Gave up the tools due to inactivity in September [1], but now I am back again and find I could need the tools back. I suppose this is just a matter of a 'crat putting the bit back, but if anyone objects to that I will of course submit to a new RfA. Best regards, Finn Rindahl 11:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't object. Admins are always needed and your election was with 100% support. I don't know if a re-election per policy must be done, but if not, I support the regranting of the bit. --Barras 12:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course Finn should get his tools back.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 13:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

No objections from me, but request that this wait for 24 hours before anything is done. Majorly talk 14:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

No objections either. --Erwin 10:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

By all means, he needs them. Wutsje 10:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Can a 'crat please either put the bit back to my account, or tell me to post a new RfA. The blacklistscripts aren't working without it, and that makes trying do deal with it sort of tedious :) Finn Rindahl 14:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I've reset the flag. Please readd yourself to the relevant admin lists. Majorly talk 17:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not know why I missed that thread... but yay!, welcome back! - I agree with Mike above. —Dferg ^(disputatio) 17:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks all. Majorly:will do. Finn Rindahl 17:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: The general rules of language use in Wikimedia

[I know that my English is not perfect. And I would be grateful for the correction of possible grammatical and stylistic errors.]

I am a professional anthropologist and at the same time, a man with extensive experience as a politician and as a participant of legal conflicts. I am very much interested on those most bitter conflicts in the Wikipedia community around the creation of Wikipedia in different languages. Particularly, this is the sharp conflicts over languages as: Volapük, Lombardian, Siberian, Klingon, Quenya, Toki Pona, Moldovan.

[I note that the closing pages of the Moldovan and Siberian languages was partly inspired by political motives, respectively, the representatives of Romanian and Russian languages. There is no doubt in the existence of a group of Siberian dialects of the Russian language, and there is no doubt in the existence of a formal written language, which was called "Moldovan" and was considered different from Romanian.]

I believe that decisions on these matters do not meet many of the panellists. This means that the problem of the continued functioning of languages of the Wikipedia needs more regulation. Should be introduced simple and obvious rules, which could satisfy all. Moreover, these rules should be considered obvious and fair to all members of the Wikipedia community.

These rules I have set out in the form of a few simple and universal legal norms. These rules have (based on)a few sources.

The main source: These rules follow from the main purpose of Wikipedia. The purpose of Wikipedia - creating the most complete and high quality on-line version of the encyclopedia in all languages of the Earth.

Second source: own practice of the Wikipedia community (especially the Language committee) in dealing with such issues, the presence in the practice of historical precedents.

The third source: the general universal principles of law that have proved themselves throughout the history of mankind, and which recognized the basic legal systems of almost all States, except in the most odious dictatorships. In this case there are two such universal principles:

1) A person shall not be liable for the acts of illegality which he could not have known. In particular, a person should not be punished for acts which were not illegal at the time they were committed.

2) If people are free to enjoy certain rights, these rights they can not be taken away or limited. This is a very important universal principle, which dictates the obvious solution of a number of the most violent conflicts in the Wikipedia community.

Based on this latter principle, those languages that have already been existed on Wikipedia pages, or which have already obtained the right to create such pages in the wiki-Incubator, in any case can not be denied the right to have own Wikipedia.

Because of this legal principle should be necessary to reopen the languages of the Wikipedia such as Klingon, Toki Pona, Moldovan and Siberian.

On the other hand, these Wikipedias have been closed for fair and honest reasons. So we must not allow similar pages in the future. For this purpose, these guidelines should be taken.

The general rules of language use in Wikimedia

A. Rules of use of existing languages in Wikimedia

1) Any language of Wikimedia may not be removed from it.

2) Administrators of each active Wikipedia in any language are obliged to care about the quality of Wikipedia articles. In particular, there is considered unacceptable the bot-creation of the main part of Wikipedia articles in any language.

In case of serious doubt as Wikipedia in this language guide Wikimedia Foundation may require the removal of all articles that have been bot-uploaded.

3) If necessary, bad-quality Wikimedia to correct the deficiencies can be returned to the Wiki-incubator.

4) If the language is used in two or more writing systems, separate sections for each type of writing should not be created. Instead, its necessary to create a program that can translate the contents of any article on this language from one writing system into another.

We are welcome to create program for any of Wikipedia’s language, that gives the contents of articles into the International Phonetic Alphabet, as well as program that translates into the Latin transcription of the contents of articles in those languages, which made other writing systems.

B. Rules for the establishment of Wikipedia and Wiki-Incubator’s new languages

1) In the Wikipedia and Wiki-incubator can be created sections in any native (living or dead) language, having the code ISO 639-3.

2) In the Wikipedia can be created partitions on any living language, not having the code ISO 639-3, if it satisfies the following conditions:

a) there are people for whom this language is native;

b) these language has a literature and electronic sites;

c) there is a scientific description of the language: its vocabulary and grammar;

d) The Wikipedia has pages devoted to this language in English and at least three other languages.

3) In the Wikipedia can be created sections on any recently extinct language, not having the code ISO 639-3, if it satisfies the following conditions:

a) The language died out not earlier than 1850;

b) there is a tutorial of the language;

c) these language has a literature and electronic sites;

d) there is the scientific description of the language: its vocabulary and grammar;

e) The Wikipedia has pages devoted to this language in English and at least three other languages.

4) In the Wikipedia can be created partitions on any dead language, not having the code ISO 639-3, if it satisfies the following conditions:

a) in that language existed and survived to the present day own rich literature;

b) there is a tutorial of the language;

c) these language has a modern literature and electronic sites;

d) there is the scientific description of the language: its vocabulary and grammar;

e) The Wikipedia has pages devoted to this language in English and at least three other languages.

5) All the languages that do not meet the criteria set out in paragraphs 1), 2), 3) and 4), are considered to be artificial.

In Wikipedia, there are sections of the following artificial (constructed) languages: Esperanto, Simple English, Ido, Novial, Intelingua, Interlingue (Occidental), Volapük, Lojban, Quenya, Klingon, Siberian, Toki Pona, and Lingua Franca Nova.

In the Wikipedia is not possible to create partitions on any other artificial languages.

As an exception, the decision on establishment a section of Wikipedia in any other artificial language can be accepted Wikimedia Board of Trustees. In this case the language must meet all the requirements of paragraph 4) for the dead languages and have code ISO 639-3 and a level of development and popularity of not less than the Quenya in 2009.

6) If a native language has the code ISO 639-3, but does not satisfy the conditions about 2) or 3) or 4), proposal of this language can be rejected.

I believe that the adoption of these rules will remove all the stress and all the discussions around the language policy of Wikipedia.

Best Regards,

Ihor Rassokha, Ukraine

My proposal regarding the registration of new languages

I don't propose “defining what makes a language”. If a language has its own literature, this language is already defined as language by its writers, readers, editors and libraries. Every serious library takes account of each language separately. All modern libraries have electronic catalogs. If a language has a website, that language is already defined as language by programmers.

There is website Ethnologue: “The purpose of the Ethnologue is to provide a comprehensive listing of the known living languages of the world. (…) Ancient, classical, and long-extinct languages are not listed (even though the ISO 639-3standard assigns codes to them), unless they are in current use (as in the scriptures or liturgy of a faith community)”.

So, I propose:

Profile (test questionnaire) for a new language of Wikipedia

1. Language name in English language.

2. Language name in native language.

3. Status of language: living, recently extinct, dead, artificial.

4. Its ISO 639-3 code or a good reason why the language has no code.

5. Article about this language in English Wikipedia.

6. Articles about this language in three other Wikipedias.

7. Three some websites in this language.

8. Five modern (written at 20-21 century) books in this language with electronic catalogs of some libraries, where are these books.

9. Vocabulary of this language as a book with electronic catalog of library or as a website.

10. Grammar of this language as a book with electronic catalog of library or as a website.

For living languages:

11. Article about this language in website Ethnologue.

For recently extinct, dead, artificial languages:

12. Tutorial of the language as a book with electronic catalog of library or as a website.

For recently extinct languages:

13. Summary, that the language died out not earlier than 1850: quotations from authoritative sources (websites).

For dead languages:

14. Five published in 20-21 centuries books with ancient texts in this language, with electronic catalogs of some libraries, where are these books.

For artificial languages:

15. Educational institution with the state license, where this language is learned; with website of this institution.

16. Three different ongoing magazines in this languages with electronic catalogs of some libraries, where are these magazines.

If supporters of a new language are unable to complete the questionnaire, this language can not be accepted. Thanks, Paccoxa 12:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Why the change of the language policy is necessary.

I received personal letter from one member of the Language committee. I disagree with him, and (sorry!) continue this discussion publicly.

1. About my “urge to have the language policy”: I reached a lot in my life, and this discussion don't need me for assertiveness. I like Wikipedia, and want it to be even better. I'm just a volunteer.

2. You write: “You do not address the overwhelming desire by a majority of our community not to have any new projects at all. ...your point of view will open a lot of negative debate that is likely to only negatively affect the existence of our smaller projects and prevent the creation of new projects.” I believe in your sincerity, but this point of view cannot be truth. The Wikipedia's Сommunity never will say: “We do not allow the establishment of any new language projects”.

3. Somebody do not address modern position of Wikipedia in the world culture. Now Wikipedia is one of the most successful global projects in history. Wikipedia means in the field of knowledge the same thing as the United Nations in the field of policy or as the Olympic Games in the field of sport. For any language to have own Wikipedia means the same thing as to be United Nations member for any independent state or to take part in the Olimpic Games for any national team. The UN (or on the Olympic competition) do not invite everybody, but the door will be open always for decent.

4. “You will have to realise that the closure of Toki pona and Klingon was welcomed with a loud round of applause at Wikimania in Taiwan”. - I myself am ready to welcome with a loud round of applause the information, that the new projects like Toki pona and Klingon will no longer be allowed to Wikipedia. To my mind, it's the general aim of your Language committee.

5. But now there are in Wikipedia some projects not better than Toki pona and Klingon. For example, Volapuk (25 speakers generally!) or Gothic (dead language without any modern literature: do not confuse ancient language with the modern youth movement!). I read about Klingon in Wikipedia: “According to Guinness World Records for 2006, it is the most spoken fictional language by number of speakers.” Klingon has websites, books, quarterly journal and “heavy metal band who allegedly sing in Klingon”. Gothic and Volapuk haven't journal and rock- or folk- or jazz-group. But these languages have active Wikipedias now (Volapuk - even excessively active).

6. “History of the Klingon Wikipedia” say: “the fictional nature of the language means that there are no real-world speakers around who could form a community. Work was limited by the fact that the Klingon vocabulary is closed and incomplete, leaving no way to discuss many important topics without circumlocutions”. But the Gothic is not suitable for discussion about algebra or computer design too. But in this situation there are many living languages of Wikipedia too. To my mind, it is not generally fair or correct to deny the right to their own language Wikipedia, if this language isn't “developed” or “reach”. Wikipedia is the beautiful way for developing of any language.

7. The main problem of languages - if there are no real-world speakers around who could form a community. To my mind, it must be the main and alone reason for rejecting a request for an official Wikipedia. And first of all it is the problem of artificial languages. In "History of the Klingon Wikipedia" says: “At present, the conlangs for which Wikipedias exist are Esperanto, Ido, Interlingua, Interlingue (Occidental), Lojban, Volapük and Novial. All of these have some speakers; the first three, and in particular Esperanto, have a community of speakers of notable size.” But what about the community of speakers in Interlingue (Occidental), Lojban, Volapük and Novial? Generally it's problem of all artificial languages except Esperanto and (may be) Simple English.

8. To my mind, the right to own Wikipegia could only be decent languages, which have serious community. Now the Language committee believes the main criterion for the decent languages the existence of code ISO 639-3. But there are many artificial or dead languages with valid code ISO 639-3, but without serious community. The same problem has any living language with valid code ISO 639-3, but without writing tradition. Or if there are, for example, only three or five alive speakers in this language. Wikipedia should be a tool, not monument. On the other hand, now there are Wikipedia languages without code ISO 639-3. That is why the criterion of code ISO 639-3 is not satisfy. It can be only additional.

9. Now the Language committee spends a lot of time and nerves for rejecting of the bad language proposals. I propose more simple and formal procedure. Supporters of a new language must complete the standard test questionnaire. There are 10 questions for all languages + 1 or 2 or 3 questions for different categories (living, recently extinct, dead, artificial). If supporters of a new language are unable to complete the questionnaire, this language can not be accepted. I draw your attention to four paragraphs of this questionnaire: 7. Three some websites in this language. 8. Five modern (written at 20-21 century) books in this language with electronic catalogs of some libraries, where are these books. 9. Vocabulary of this language as a book with electronic catalog of library or as a website. 10. Grammar of this language as a book with electronic catalog of library or as a website. These criteria are more clear and hard, than criterion of code ISO 639-3.

10. This test questionnaire can be completed by real living languages only. It gives a chance to recently extinct languages with own writing tradition. This test is impossible for dead languages like Sumerian (has not modern literature), Pecheneg (has not ancient literature) or Pictish (has not grammar and vocabulary, as any language without decryption). Accepting of an artificial languages will be possible only as an exception. It mind, that there will not be any new bad Wikipedia.

11. It is clear that some existing languages of Wikipedia are not passed to this test. Question: What do we do about these languages, like Volapuk or Gothic? - The most simple and humanistic answer: nothing. Participants of such Wikipedias have nothing to blame. Here we must recall the universal legal principle: If people are free to enjoy certain rights, these rights they can not be taken away or limited. That is why I propose as general rule of Wikipedia (and Wikimedia generally): 1) Any language of Wikimedia may not be removed from it. But: 3) If necessary, bad-quality Wikimedia to correct the deficiencies can be returned to the Wiki-incubator.

12. But if we decided to keep Volapuk, Gothic and so on, if we decided, that any language of Wikimedia may not be removed from it, what about the languages, which were deleted from Wikipedia? If we agree, that participants of such Wikipedias as Volapuk or Gothic have nothing to blame, why Klingon, Moldovan and Siberian are worse? Another legal rule: the law is retroactive when it mitigate the punishment. Only that is why I am supporter of reopening the languages of the Wikipedia: Klingon, Toki Pona, Moldovan and Siberian. Not because I like these languages.

Thanks, Paccoxa 11:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello Paccoxa. I don't agree with many of your points, but I welcome public discussion of these issues. I do not know who you spoke to, but remember that each language committee member (including myself) has their own opinions, and that the language committee itself has neither opinions nor announcements. Any comments you received from a member of the committee only represent that member's opinions.

Wikis must sometimes be deleted for legitimate reasons regardless of the legitimacy (or illegitimacy) of the language. For example, the Siberian Wikipedia was deleted because of blatantly illegitimate content (including attacks, nationalism, etc), and the French Wikiquote was deleted due to massive copyright violation. Wikis are deleted only in exceptional cases such as these; they are more commonly locked to prevent editing when there is no active community. Wiki deletion is a matter for the Board of Trustees, and the language proposal policy cannot prohibit it. (The management of existing wikis is also beyond the scope of the language committee, which only handles future wikis.)

Methods for dealing with multiple writing systems or bots is an issue to be decided by the local community, not by a global policy. In many languages, automated translation software between writing systems is not feasible. Similarly, bots can add valuable content to a wiki, if done well. There is no reason for the policy to prohibit contributions in multiple writing systems or by bots, and the internal policies of a created wiki are beyond the scope of the proposal policy.

The establishment of wikis in extinct language remains controversial, which explains the current policy's imprecision on this point. Further discussion on this point is certainly needed.

We want to draw a line between obvious languages (like Russian) and obvious non-languages (like Pathoschildian), but the area between these can be very fuzzy. The definition of a language is thus very controversial; this is why we depend on the work of standard linguistic bodies like ISO 639-1–3. The wikis that exist without an ISO 639 code were created before the language committee was created to standardize the previously arbitrary process; the committee's scope only includes future wikis, not existing wikis. —Pathoschild 17:53:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

CentralNotice/Global sysops and Global sysops/Vote/Introduction

I understand this is not especially the right page, but Meta talk:Babylon seems quite inactive and I know that a large number of people (many of whom are multilingual) watch this page. The global sysops vote is scheduled to go ahead on December 1. Presently, we have a severe shortage of translations for the core messages at CentralNotice/Global sysops and Global sysops/Vote/Introduction. If more translations are not received before the date, the vote will have to be postponed – which is a pain. If you're able, please help. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Stewards performing bureaucrat actions at Meta

I'm getting a bit tired of coming across requests at steward pages (mostly Steward requests/SUL requests) that need to be dealt with by Meta bureaucrats and then having to refer the requesting user to another page at the same project. It seems a bit pointless and not very user friendly, so I was wondering how people feel about stewards taking care of those requests. Of course, a steward can just request bureaucratship here and I was just about to do so, but I wanted to see how people feel about this first. So what do you think? --Erwin 10:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be simpler to request bureaucratship, assuming the steward was already an admin. Otherwise, I do believe it best for local bureaucrats to be fulfilling the requests. Majorly talk 19:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Majorly. An other way would be to just ping a bureaucrat on the notice board with a link to the request. That would make it userfriendly for the requester. --Barras 19:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Why can't the local bureaucrats just watch SR/SUL?? Can't be so much more work for them... Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 15:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Because it's a steward page, and most requests can be fulfilled by stewards. On the rare occasion it's a request for meta, and the steward does not have bureaucrat rights, they can go and request them, or direct the user to the noticeboard. Majorly talk 17:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course this was too much to ask, bureaucrats are bureaucrats. --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 18:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we set bureaucrat flags for the stewards that regularly handle these pages? That way they can take care of the request while they're processing them anyway. —Pathoschild 16:48:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of something similar, it doesn't make sense if we can't trust a steward to be a crat on Meta ;) Having them get the flag automatically or just having a local policy that they can do meta crat actions seems to make sense since having them go through an RfB just seems to be unnecessarily bureaucratic. If they have a problem that makes you want to take away their crat flag there is a very good chance we should be looking at their whole steward flag as well. Jamesofur 17:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was to avoid these kind of issues we decided that Meta:Meta-Steward relationship would be a good idea last year. Stewards can perform non controversial renames on meta according to Meta:Meta-Steward relationship#Administrative actions on Meta. WJBscribe (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that, I was surprised there wasn't a policy along those lines but wasn't able to find it. If no one has an objection I'll add a link to that from the Meta:administrator page so that it's visible at the moment it really isn't linked from anywhere. Jamesofur 21:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)