Talk:Steward requests/Permissions/2009

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Can users request uploader permission here? (The uploader permission allows users to upload images when this right is otherwise unavailable to them.) Stifle 13:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this right available everywhere to everyone anyway? If it wasn't, you would request here I guess, but you'd need consensus on the local wiki first. Majorly talk 13:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

oversight ideas

How about permission to remove or at least archive old versions of your user pages or even articles that you started? One could take out typos and redundant unfinished steps of any edit that way, and in case someone else joins an article, there could be a way notify &amp ask them about removing any old version. One day I would like to be an admin on the most Wikis I edit, particularly literary ones (university, books, dictionary, encyclopedia,.) I would request it right now if I could request it on all 4 at once.---Dchmelik 09:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You could do that as admin also, I don't think oversight is the best way to do that.
But why deleted older version? It could cause problems with the gfdl license. Abigor talk 09:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
You request sounds like "please delete mistakes I have done", I think you will never be judged for mistakes you have done when you were younger.--Vituzzu 09:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Then what is the best way, and what is wrong with at least removing all typos and intermediary steps from one's own user page or even articles that no one else edits? I certainly do not want to see that changelog or force others to see. So do I have to request adminship at the literary Wikis I mentioned or can I hereby do it here perhaps in an automated way? I would not mind editing the Wiki namespage too: I tried to make Meta:Wikimedia:nntp as a suggestion but just had to make its talk page.----Dchmelik 09:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
If I were a sysop on the projects you contribute to I never accept your request: there are no valid reasons to kick out GFDL and do unusefull actions--Vituzzu 09:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
The oversight tool is made for removing personal information, and if a oversighter something removes it can't be seen by adminstrators, user or bureacrats. I do believe that this is something you need communety support for, and must be done by a admin. This is not important enough to elect local oversighters for if a admin can do the job. But my userpage has like maybe more than 500 edits on some wikis, I really don't mind that the history is show and I don't believe that I get why its so important. Abigor talk 09:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Administrator access

Hoi. What do others think about fusing the two sections on regular and temporary sysop access? It happens quite often that people request sysopship but we can only grant temporary rights, or people request tempsysop but put the request in the other section (it *is* really confusing for people who aren't experienced with the page). Comments, please. --Thogo (talk) 11:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Makes the most sense to just fuse the two sections together and have the person applying for the sysophood to specify whether or not they need permanent or temporary sysop, or you could just leave that up to the closing steward. Cheers, Razorflame 01:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, I really expected some more input on this... O.o So if there are no complaints until later this evening, I'll just fuse them. --Thogo (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Can't see any problem with the suggestion myself. Has this been discussed (or at least raised) on the Steward mailing list? WJBscribe (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Please do so. :) Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 16:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
@WJBscribe: No, should it? Stewards watch this page usually and I talked to some fellows at/in/on/whatever IRC back in March... :) --Thogo (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure they do watchlist this page as talkpages are watchlisted automatically along with the pages to which they relate. But this is a pretty low traffic page so I'm not sure how much readership it has. It just struck me that if you wanted to make sure people who use the request page had considered the proposal, it was a natural place to raise it. WJBscribe (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for sending it on the list :) I'd rather not have the two fused, since that would make it harder to differentiate what people exactly want to request. Although in theory it would work, I am afraid more people would be confused then already are... Also, I prefer that they are as much as possible in a more specified section, so that the information demand can be adapted to that. For normal sysophood, links etc are required, for temp other requirements are in place. So differentiating makes it easier to present this information in a clear way. Effeietsanders 10:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I would welcome a merge, IMHO it is quite confusing to have the two sections (and the fact that we often get requests in the wrong section underlines that). Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 10:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for sending it to the list so we became aware of this discussion (just to be clear: discussing it here is the right place, but the nudge on the list was goodness). I am not opposed to a merge, if it doesn't work out it can be unmerged I would think. Just need to tweak the instructions/template to make it clear that people need to say what they are asking for. ++Lar: t/c 12:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I second Lar's opinion.
Thanks a lot for this and for sharing on the list. --M/ 12:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd agree with Lar; I think users just look for the template and paste it in the first section they find. If we specify in the template instead (that we know they read) with a refrence to "check here if you should get temporary or permanent access", maybe more get it right. Also there are other rights than sysop that might require temporary rights, and the more alike the requests are, the better. Laaknor 12:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
With Lar and Laaknor, merge this. Alex Pereira falaê 12:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Hopefully a merge would lead to less confusion as a steward could say they had been granted temporary access if that was more appropriate rather than telling them to apply again in a different section. Angela 15:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
+1 for merging. -- sj | help translate |+ 01:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well. Done now. If anything needs more tweaking, poke me. --Thogo (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

header and footer

What do you think about moving the header and footer code to Steward requests/Permissions/header and Steward requests/Permissions/footer, and transcluding them instead of just having all the code on the page? J.delanoygabsadds 15:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Just do it?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Opt-out global sysop

Hello. Comments are welcome on the draft policy for an opt-out version of global administrators at Global sysops/opt-out proposal. Further details are available at that page. Comments, concerns, and anything you care to mention would be appreciated at the talk page. Thank you, NuclearWarfare 15:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Emergency desysop

І has some personal conflicts with several sysops (some of him is also bureaucrats and also members of Ukrainian Arbitration Committee (5 members - all sysops. 2 - bureaucrats)). Details: Requests for comment/Threaten by sysop on Uk Wikipedia with blocking. I think, that in uk.wikipedia is oligarchy and monarchy.

And what I can do?--Prima klasy4na 19:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a steward, but looking at the linked complaint, I do not see anything that warrants an emergency desysop. Even abuse of blocking powers do not rise to that level. MBisanz talk 23:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done Emergency desysops are only for use in situations where there is immediate harm, such as a vandal obtaining a sysop account. Political intrigues do not result in emergency desysops. Kylu 23:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Ok, thanks. But I think, some sysops use his privilege in personal conflicts for any price. Several times they ignore the rules and community. And it is no guaranty, that this times will not repeat again and again.--Prima klasy4na 01:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
That has happened in the past, and is unfortunate. The overriding issue, here, is that even if there is political abuse in action, the weight of removal falls upon the local arbcom to handle the dispute and inform the stewards if they want permissions removed. Stewards are selected for integrity in upholding the ideals of the Foundation and technical skill in wielding that ability: We're not picked for negotiation skills or judiciary experience. Sorry. Kylu 02:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Also I want to ask: this extension is not used by Wikimedia?--Prima klasy4na 02:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Short answer: No. Long answer: Go to the specific project you want to find out about and visit its special:version page, which has a list of installed extensions. Kylu 03:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks!:)--Prima klasy4na 03:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I think, It may and need to be included in extensions used by uk.wikipedia because of usurpation of administrative and arbitrage functions.--Prima klasy4na 23:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
If your project wants a certain extension installed that's not part of the standard package, you'll want to describe exactly how you want the extension set up, form a local consensus on the project, then file a bug request at bugzilla: so the sysadmins know that you want it implemented. Everything after that is up to the sysadmins. Stewards have zero say in such changes to your local project configuration. Kylu 23:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)