Talk:Steward requests/Permissions/2018

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created on 01 January 2018, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.

How to request permanent admin if there is no local RFA equivalent, little-to-no community

I recently became active on jbo: (after a misguided closure request). When I looked at the local recentchanges, I saw that the only other user active recently is an IP who creates articles about people and fictional characters, often with improperly-lojbanized names containing lots of "k"s. I want to have permanent admin rights as a result; however, this page says that to be a permanent admin, you need community consensus on an RFA page. The problem: a) there is not enough of a community to have a proper consensus and b) en:WP:RFA appears not to have a jbowiki equivalent (I didn't see "la .lojban." anywhere in the langlinks, but Wikidata doesn't include everything, so I may be wrong). KATMAKROFAN (talk) 21:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@KATMAKROFAN: If there is no local community then permanent adminship cannot be granted. There has to be a large enough community where a proper consensus can form for stewards to act on such a request. Otherwise, you'll have to stick with temporary and reapply every so often. --Majora (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Interface admin

Is interface admin requests handled here?--▸ ‎épine talk 13:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Épine: Yes in Steward_requests/Permissions#Miscellaneous_requests --Alaa :)..! 13:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
@علاء: thanks Alaa! I would like you to handle the request if possible.--▸ ‎épine talk 13:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Bot broken?

It doesn’t seem as if this page has been cleaned up recently... StevenJ81 (talk) 10:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@StevenJ81: See this section --Alaa :)..! 09:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
@علاء: I'd be happy to keep this manually cleaned up in the meantime if someone outlines what should go where. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
We are asking other bot developer and they are interested, but they currently have other real life consequences, so we are just keeping it as is. I will write a doc in my userspace for you (and him) to see. — regards, Revi 13:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
OK. Will keep an eye out for it. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
User:-revi/SRArchive. If you need clarification, feel free to ask. — regards, Revi 13:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, @Revi. Two clarifications, please, for SRP: (1) For the moment, SRAT still exists, even for local rights, and should be used, right? (2) Unsuccessful requests, even if notionally for temp, get Archive in /YYYY-MM archive, right? StevenJ81 (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I think you can still use it, I think SRAT can be cleaned up by the new bot? And yes, all unsuccessful goes to /YYYY-MM. Added to docs. — regards, Revi 14:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
One other question: How long should closed requests remain in place before being archived? -0-? 24 hours? A week? StevenJ81 (talk) 14:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
We typically waited for 3 days, but for SRG consensus is that at most 12 hours are necessary, so for humans, 1 day is just fine. — regards, Revi 14:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@-revi: Hi. Pretty much finished archiving July expirations of temporaries from SRAT > SRP July archive. One item left, which I'm going to ask for your help on. There's a global edit-interface sitting there for a user there called Felipe Schenone, who has since been renamed Sophivorus. As far as I can tell, that right was granted with an expiration of 23 July 2018. See Special:Diff/17028732. I can find no SRGP request for a further extension, and as far as I can tell user continues to hold those rights. So you should probably figure out what to do about that. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Removed. Will notify. — regards, Revi 17:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Question

What are the requirements for bureaucrat rights to be granted to a user? I checked bureaucrat and it’s not listed. For example for a right like CheckUser it says “Xs supports from the community” and etc.--▸ ‎épine talk 14:35, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Meine benutzername oder IP-adresse wurde gesperrt. Was soll ich machen ?

Meine benutzername oder IP-adresse 46.125.250.92 wurde gesperrt 331839. Vom Administrator Srittau durchgeführt. Was soll ich machen ? Ich möchte eine Wiki-Seite bearbeiten, ich bin kein Spammer. --Caboun (talk) 11:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Issues raided by Dschungelfan

To note to stewards that user:Dschungelfan is a blocked user at deWP and is continually adding content to this page about deWP administrators. Could you please confirm to watchers that additions here by that user can be reverted/removed. May I also be so bold to suggest that this is one user who you should consider to be blocked from this page when the new blocking capabilities are introduced. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:29, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with that user being reverted without any further comment. For the partial block, let's see how it works in production (and our practices on using that) before we actually do that. — regards, Revi 04:51, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Clarification from a deWP user: user:Dschungelfan has been banned on deWP for a year by community decision in September 2018. He has made one request on this page since then. As far as I can see all of his requests here on this page have been strictly according to deWP policy. What are the grounds for blocking him from this page or blindly reverting his changes? Please note that user:Uwe Martens does not speak for the deWP community in any capacity. He does not truthfully or accurately represent deWP community consensus here on meta. --109.193.229.118 10:09, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
The community consensus on WP:DE was a one year block, especially for hunting German admins! EOD! -- Uwe Martens (talk) 10:28, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Again, AFAICS every single desysop request Dschungelfan made on this page has been strictly according to deWP rules. The admins would have been desysopped anyway as per deWP rules as soon as someone else had noticed. In this case Kritzolina chose not to stand for reelection. So she was fully aware that she was going to be desysopped. Others have been desysopped as per deWP rules for inactivity. There is nothing wrong with his requests here on meta. --109.193.229.118 10:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
He got blocked for one year with the goal, that he has no longer any influence on the German Wikipedia. Now he is continuing this through the backdoor, and this is abuse of the Meta Wiki just for provocation. And now: EOD! -- Uwe Martens (talk) 10:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Dschungelfan got blocked for one year on deWP. Since then he has made one edit on meta, requesting an absolutely uncontroversial desysopping strictly according to deWP rules. This is no abuse whatsoever and you are just about the only one feeling provoked by that. P.S. Screaming EOD will not make me stop replying. --109.193.229.118 11:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
@109.193.229.118: I remember at least one case in which Dschungelfan was wrong : Steward requests/Permissions/2017-12#Ziko@dewiki. I'd suggest that his edits on the permission page should be handled with a second pair of eyes on it, that's all since he is not blocked on Meta. NNW (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Good point. In this case I second your suggestion that Dschungelfan's requests on here should be scrutinized by at least one other person before a steward processes them. --109.193.229.118 13:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Info: The issue has/is been discussed here. Have a nice day! -- Uwe Martens (talk) 11:18, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Official policy at ro.wiki regarding to removal special permissions for inactive patrols

At romanian Wikipedia (w:ro:Wikipedia:Revocare) is not existing an official policy on the expiry of special permissions for inactive patrols, as in the case of administrators and bureaucrats, instead "can be done after a similar discussion in which it will show that the user has been mistaken too often to be able to base his patrols or that he has flagged malicious alterations made by another account or anonymous users" to w:ro:Wikipedia:Destituiri. We currently have 2 inactive patrols (4 years for a user and another one who is in wiki-vacation at this moment). In the local discussion we did not reach a consensus. How could the situation be clarified?--Kunok Kipcsak (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2018 (UTC)