Talk:Stewards: Difference between revisions

Content added Content deleted

Inline

Latest revision as of 02:00, 22 July 2015

What is the diff. between stewards and GS? What permissions do stewards have that GS's like myself don't? I know checkuser and oversight, but there must be others... Tau Ceti (talk) 00:51, 17 February 2015 (GMT)

Hi there Tau Ceti! Off the top of my head, Stewards have access to global accounts (locking/hiding) and the ability to change global group memberships. They can also read private wikis; if I'm correct, global sysops cannot do this. They might have a few more global-related rights, but I can't think of any off the top of my head. They have access to private information (which you already know), and that is another big difference. If someone else would like to provide a more in-depth analysis, feel free! Happy editing, and thank you for your help! -- Joe G. (Talk) 00:54.01, 17 February 2015 (GMT)

To expand, Stewards have the power to control every wiki, and every user on every wiki. They have access to the private wikis and and deleted information, and control users locally or globally at once. GS's only have limited admin rights on every wiki which allows them to access deleted edits and log entries, block users locally on any wiki, and a few other bits. They cannot change user rights unless they have the local sysop right, nor can they access private wikis without the proper rights.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 04:06, 17 February 2015 (GMT)

Unnecessary external link

-snip, view previous note in edit history- I proposed a complete re-write of the page at Stewards/Draft NDKilla (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2015 (BST)

Confirmation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I would like to re-evaluate some users here. Could you please re-evaluate kudu and Dusti? --NargoSte (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2015 (BST)

I do not know if that is possible. @NDKilla: Do you have any idea? --Reception123 (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2015 (BST)

Hi there. If you would, please elaborate on what basis you'd like to re-evaluate them? Dusti and Kudu are the Project Leaders of Orain, they make the financial, legal, and otherwise "more official" decisions about Orain. They are also the founders of the project. They may not seem them as active as you do some of the other stewards, but that is because they are working mostly behind the scenes. They do some of the best work I've ever seen and they are some of the most professional people I've ever dealt with. I have the utmost respect for and trust in them. With that said, at this time, unless you can provide a legitimate basis for their re-evaluation, the answer is no. They will not be re-evaluated. Thank you, -- Joe G. (Talk) 19:58, 18 July 2015 (BST)

Considering that this is a brand new account, and this is the accounts second edit eight minutes after registering, I'm slightly confused and bothered as it, on the surface, seems to be a sock account. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:40, 19 July 2015 (BST)

I second the request mostly because it seems some people are using the rights. Since this is a "community-driven" network, I see no reason to deny a request to re-evaluate. Also I can't reset my password or create a new account because the captcha boxes don't appear. 50.7.138.125 01:45, 22 July 2015 (BST)

I'm sorry, but this discussion is closed and is not open for further discussion. As I stated above, there is not a legitimate reason presented for their re-evaluation and Kudu and Dusti are the project leaders and do work behind the scenes. I'm not trying to take away the "community driven"-ness of anything, but there does have to be a bit of staff discretion on this matter. If you can provide a legitimate reason, beyond inactivity, I invite you to do so in a new section. At that time, if the un-involved staff feel that re-evaluation is necessary, then protocol will be established and enacted. Thank you for your understanding, -- Joe G. (Talk) 02:56, 22 July 2015 (BST)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 == Confirmation ==
+{{Discussion top}}
 I would like to re-evaluate some users here. Could you please re-evaluate kudu and Dusti? --[[User:NargoSte|NargoSte]] ([[User talk:NargoSte|talk]]) 19:39, 18 July 2015 (BST)
 :I do not know if that is possible. {{Ping|NDKilla}} Do you have any idea? --[[User:Reception123|Reception123]] ([[User talk:Reception123|talk]]) 19:46, 18 July 2015 (BST)
@@ Line 14: / Line 15: @@
 :I second the request mostly because it seems some people are using the rights. Since this is a "community-driven" network, I see no reason to deny a request to re-evaluate. Also I can't reset my password or create a new account because the captcha boxes don't appear. [[Special:Contributions/50.7.138.125|50.7.138.125]] 01:45, 22 July 2015 (BST)
 ::I'm sorry, but this discussion is '''closed''' and is not open for further discussion. As I stated above, there is not a legitimate reason presented for their re-evaluation and Kudu and Dusti are the project leaders and do work behind the scenes. I'm not trying to take away the "community driven"-ness of anything, but there does have to be a bit of staff discretion on this matter. If you can provide a legitimate reason, beyond inactivity, I invite you to do so in a new section. At that time, if the un-involved staff feel that re-evaluation is necessary, then protocol will be established and enacted. Thank you for your understanding, -- <font color="blue"><b>[[User:Joe G|Joe&nbsp;G.]]</b></font> ([[User_talk:Joe G|Talk]]) 02:56, 22 July 2015 (BST)
+{{Discussion bottom}}

Talk:Stewards: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 02:00, 22 July 2015

Unnecessary external link

Confirmation

Navigation menu

Search