Requests for comment/Tulsi advanced permissions and UPE
The following request for comments is closed. There is nothing to do here. --MF-W 20:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
In this thread on en.wiki, there is clear agreement that Tulsi did not adequately respond to charges regarding paid editing and use of advanced permission when raised at meta.wiki in 2020. While that thread resulted in his loss of global sysop and global rollback, he still holds sysop privileges on meta, Commons, mai.wiki, mediawiki, ne.wiki and autopatrolled on vi.wiki and species.wikimedia.org (although I'm not sure there's any potential for abuse of that last one), in addition to holding WMF roles that I believe are outside the scope of meta-wiki. It is not clear why any of this has continued given his lack of accountability around paid editing on en.wiki, specifically including his abuse of privileges there. While I could see stewards declining to act on permissions granted on projects with active administrators, at a minimum meta.wiki sysop seems like it should be a given to remove at this time. signed, Rosguill talk 19:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- There are specific processes for rights removal; at Meta it would be a request for de-adminship. However, I am not seeing any recent issues with Tulsi's contributions - has there been anything problematic within the last year? I understand that is after 2020 but still seems relevant - I can't follow on the enwiki thread how exactly he ties into the current drama other than past affiliations. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think it would be worth bringing it up on every project that Tulsi is an admin on. On Commons, this first requires an c:COM:ANU discussion. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 06:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- @SHB2000 Yes, I started. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- And is unlikely to go anywhere because Tulsi has not violated any policies on Commons. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 00:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- @SHB2000 Yes, I started. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think it would be worth bringing it up on every project that Tulsi is an admin on. On Commons, this first requires an c:COM:ANU discussion. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 06:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Rosguill a few responses wearing my various hats
- (meta) I agree with Ajr above that for meta this would be a de-adminship request, but we don't actually have community-based de-adminship, just inactivity-based, see Meta:Administrators#Policy for de-adminship. But, since it is not a content wiki I don't know what paid editing would be able to accomplish here
- (mediawiki) It seems we have no de-adminship criteria outside of the global Admin activity review, but since mediawiki.org is run by the developers and we aren't as strict on policies (c.f. mw:Project:Requests for permissions) starting a thread on mw:Project:Administrators' noticeboard would probably be enough
- (species) probably not much room for abuse, but if you start a thread at species:Wikispecies:Administrators' Noticeboard given that they are fairly inactive admins might decide to remove out of an abundance of caution (I haven't read through the concerns enough to just remove right now)
- Also noting for the record that the discussion on commons was closed without action, see c:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 112#Should I nominate User:Tulsi for removal of adminship?
- --DannyS712 (talk) 07:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Actually @DannyS712: community-based de-adminship has been done on this before; see Meta:Requests_for_adminship/Nemo_bis_(removal). Leaderboard (talk) 07:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Leaderboard That's only an archive, currently the Meta de-adminship policy only includes the inactive cases. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Liuxinyu970226: It was not like that the de-adminship policy then was any different - the point is that even if it's not in the rules, there's a provision to desysop someone. Leaderboard (talk) 05:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Leaderboard Provision≠policy or guideline, which means that such pages can't be an example for posterity of younger peoples (any way, why do you think Iran has FOP? You voted keep on several wikis, not only Commons, to say that FOP Iran section is a lie, and by checking WIPO site, Iran really doesn't have that provision). Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Liuxinyu970226: I'm not sure what you're saying regarding Iran? Leaderboard (talk) 05:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Leaderboard Provision≠policy or guideline, which means that such pages can't be an example for posterity of younger peoples (any way, why do you think Iran has FOP? You voted keep on several wikis, not only Commons, to say that FOP Iran section is a lie, and by checking WIPO site, Iran really doesn't have that provision). Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Liuxinyu970226: It was not like that the de-adminship policy then was any different - the point is that even if it's not in the rules, there's a provision to desysop someone. Leaderboard (talk) 05:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Leaderboard That's only an archive, currently the Meta de-adminship policy only includes the inactive cases. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment Meta does actually allow de-adminship requests and have had them in the past (see for example Meta:Requests for adminship/Nemo bis (removal) - just that there is no clear policy governing how they are supposed to take place (which was the reason for the bureaucrat discussion in the above linked request). EPIC (talk) 07:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- OK, Leaderboard got to it before me. EPIC (talk) 07:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Actually @DannyS712: community-based de-adminship has been done on this before; see Meta:Requests_for_adminship/Nemo_bis_(removal). Leaderboard (talk) 07:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- @MF-Warburg: Is your suggestion that the appropriate venue for seeking Tulsi's Meta adminship rights be removed is for someone to create Meta:Requests for adminship/Tulsi (removal)? Sdkb talk 23:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- I am not suggesting any removals, but yes, if someone wanted to proposal the removal of adminship on Meta, that would be the appropriate venue. -- MF-W 13:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)