Steward requests/Permissions: Difference between revisions

==== Username@xxproject ====
{{sr-request
 |status    = <!-- Don't change this line -->
 |domain    = <!-- Such as en.wikibooks -->
 |user name = 
 |discussion= 
}}
(your remarks) ~~~~

==== User name@xxproject ====
{{sr-request
 |status    = <!--don't change this line-->
 |domain    =
 |user name =
 |discussion= 
}}

Laos wikipedia not have neatness because have troll has editing many article in laos wikipedia and not have admin for manager problem, please appoint me to admin, thank you--Laomonarchrestore (talk) 08:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please link to where you have posted to your community your wish to undertake admin duties. We would expect there to be at least a week between a nomination and a close to give a community time to respond.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sir click here--Laomonarchrestore (talk) 05:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In progress… Discussion should remain open until May 24. -- Avi (talk) 13:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reacted in the village pump there. Although I applaud having a Lao user being admin there; I am afraid the user has barely contributed sofar has not asked in Laotian to become an admin and judging on his username and userpage cannot be expected to be neutral with regards to issues in Laos today. Waerth (talk) 11:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please give or not give the user the sysop rights upon your consideration. 5 pro, 1 against (voter's argument is written in English so you can read it yourself). --Base (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say to grant it of course, but I've just made one permanent admin (Olena) above, and Base's temp-adminship has been prolonged for 1+1/2 years (quite long). What about making all of them permanent? I'd preferr not to create two classes of admins on the same wiki if at all possible. Best regards. -- MarcoAurelio 21:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

well, if people knew that this adminship is not temporary, they could vote differently, for example oppose the adminship of a person with only 12 edits. --Ilya (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Ilya:. I'd be good if @Ahonc: could clarify us if those requests are intented to be permanent adminship or just temporary adminship requests. I've changed Olena's adminship to a three-months term, until clarification is provided, and will hold this a bit since new votes are being cast on Jbuket's RfA. Best regards. -- MarcoAurelio 00:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there was not stated that adminship will be temporary, we voted for permanent there.--Anatoliy (talk) 04:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, we have been trying to have a permanent admin there for three years now... --アンタナナ 08:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marco misunderstood Ilya: all nominations there are initially for permanent adminship but not all stews agree to give permanent one. Last three years stews says that now we give temporary and next will be permanent, but as you see Base got temporary fifth time. Now Olena has 8-0 in favour. May be it will be enough for permanent? --Anatoliy (talk) 09:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahonc: Thanks for your clarification. I'd say that Olena can be made permanent, as I did at first time. As for Base, I'd preferr if the steward who handled the request decided upon it. I have however raised this to our mailing list so my fellows are informed. Best regards. -- MarcoAurelio 09:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I understood Ajr's decision: here he said that user should have 8 support for permanent. But maybe term is wrong. I think that if previous term ends on May 28 then next should began from May 28, not from May 19--Anatoliy (talk) 09:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A term starts when the administrative action occurs and that is due to the issues of keeping track on components, so is procedural, not judgmental. If you want the term to start later, we simply leave it on hold longer prior to undertaking the action.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that I have no issues with Base being granted permanent access. The only reason I didn't was because, at that time, they would have been the sole admin and they would have had permanent access. With other admins, I have no such reservations. 8 supports is a guideline; we are more concerned with there being an active and involved community, which that typically represents. Ajraddatz (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a big community, and I'd call two supports a consensus for permanent adminship. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 15:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Granted for 6 months to expire on 2015-11-21. Sorry, we usually want to see at least 8 support votes and an active community before granting permanent adminship. Ajraddatz (talk) 15:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 15:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - Hi Roshan014, you are not an admin on the Italian Wikipedia, so the rights cannot be removed. You are however active on the English Wikipedia. You can read more about adminship at Wikipedia:Administrators. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove my admin rights on de.wiki, thanks. -jkb- 17:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

•  On hold for (at least) 24 hours as per SOP. -- Avi (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Erl. -- MarcoAurelio 17:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove my administrator rights on Commons. Thanks, FASTILY 03:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold for 1 day, standard for resignation of advanced permissions -- MarcoAurelio 04:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is related to this voluntary reconfirmation which was withdrawn. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove my global rollback and sysop rights. Thanks... –BruTe ^talk 11:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold for 24h per standard practice. einsbor _talk 11:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Stryn (talk) 09:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Einar Myre chose not to run for re-election.[1] Please remove the admin bit. – Cocu (d) 22:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Mentifisto 08:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tim asked for revoking his admin right at our Lounge. -- DerFussi 07:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He's right! --Timmaexx (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold for 24h per standard practice.

Please remove my admin rights. Thanks. Josq (talk) 11:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold for 24h per standard practice. Linedwell (talk) 11:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the current atmosphere of suspicion on Czech Wiktionary we have agreed to present the vote to the stewards without evaluating it locally. There are no written rules on voting eligibility, no agreed quorum, no agreed percentage needed for desysoping. As also some concerns about backstage influencing of stewards were raised and some users may feel something really important should be said to the stewards before the evaluation (e.g. accusations of sockpuppetry), please wait a day or two before evaluating so they have their chance to correct or supplement my summary. Tchoř (talk) 07:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse Elfix's putting on hold this request. --Vituzzu (talk) 11:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. As a statement of fact, an admin at csWikt did post to stewards OTRS board (Ticket:2015050810001901) about the ability for stewards to close, and I provided an opinion that a community could request steward(s) to act as bureaucrats.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also cs.wikt (and other cs projects, except cs.wiki) is suffering for an ongoing fight between two "factions". At a glance I'd say Milda did the right action, being the wrong person doing it for the right reason...this is what is generally called "a complete mess". --Vituzzu (talk) 16:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two comments:

1. the arguments against are not just about this last event
2. if you say "Milda did the right action", what right action you mean? Outing or indef block?--Juandev (talk) 08:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indef block is perfectly legit. You were warned even on the OTRS to stop playing this childish game and you went on. We're evaluating the correctness of the vote but there's surely no reason to unblock you.--Vituzzu (talk) 11:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What Juandev did: He added an example sentence into a dictionary entry about a family name (surname). The example sentence was a quote from a news server mentioning a person searched by the police. The person mentioned has the same name like another editor who didn't make his identity public but there was no link to this editor at all - his identity was not revealed or even hinted at - in fact people who didn't know his name had no clue that the example sentence mentioned a name some editor has - only the "initiated" would know.

Compared with other example sentences there was no problem with it - we have lots of example sentences like that. So basically there was no evident reason to delete this example sentence at all. Nevertheless, Milda deleted it with the edit summary "one example sentence is enough" - which was a very bad (or rather stupid) explanation - many entries have several example sentences. After it was reverted, Milda blocked Juandev indef with the block summary "provocation(s) and publishing personal data".

It must be said that half of the block summary is a lie. Juandev did not publish the personal data of any Wikimedian. He "published" personal data of a person searched by the Czech police - something that has already been made known by the media and the Police - so copying it was no break of any rule or law. Please note that personal data in Czech and European law has two parts: "data" and "person". Both parts must be present if a term is personal data. Only one part (a name or address or telephon number etc) if there is no person associated with it constitues no personal data. So if a dictioanry example sentence uses a name of some editor but makes no link to him/her, no personal data of any editor is revelated or hinted at. If you think that Juandev broke any law or rule on personal data, it must be vehemently rejected.

Actually quite the contrary is true. It was Milda himself who in his comment in the above mentioned page did the outing - he linked the the family name and the afflicted editor (it's now hidden in page history). Yes, it was Milda who did the actual outing! --Auvajs (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I stop to understand. I agree that my edit was not good. It was the first time, I did that and I will not do that any more, as I can see it was not good. But I would never release personal identity of a person, who does not want so. What happened is described above. I didnt want to release someone identity, thats why I havent linked that example with a user of Wiktionary. It is not just a law of Czech Republic or EU, but seemingly of the US as it is described in the article en:Personal data.

So if we are talking about that according which Wikimedia policy it was oversighted? Which Wikimedia policy I broke, that I should get indef block? Why Milda, who revealed the personal data is not blocked?

But lets have a look on the arguments also. Most of the arguments are about this last case (most supporters arguments agress with you Vituzzu, that I have revealed personal data). Other arguments against Milda are also, that he commit a personal attack against me (and you should remember that, because, you checked him) and was saying he didnt do that. That was the first time, some where calling him to resing and he did not do that. And than some other behavioural issues are placed as arguments against Milda.--Juandev (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: quibbling is the best way to persuade me you're acting in bad faith.

@Auvajs: that's a nice fairy tale. Juandev's one was a pure provocation, he choose that particular sentence in order to provocate his enemies.

@Juandev: yep, Milda socked to play the same game you love playing. I believe the only solution is to remove all people loving this game for CS projects, so maybe their fellow players will stop fighting.

--Vituzzu (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but that is your POV. My statment is not, I didnt.--Juandev (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely is and denying it this way sounds almost offensive. If it wasn't a provocation WHY DID YOU CHOOSE THAT SENTENCE? --Vituzzu (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I did not want to say, that using the name XY was good. I agree with you it was not. I failed:-( But the motivation and choise of that sentence that time was not a provocation. The reason was, that other senteces, published by enities from which we quote on cs.wikt, where not available.

You stewards have had oversighted two of my edits there, with summary "personal information". One was an example sentence, one was a name X. In the sentece there was a name XY, but no link to Wikimedia user. Thus it was not a revelation of persona information. But it is still oversighted as personal information and you still inist in insulting me for revelation. User Auvaj tells you it was not a revelation, but it is still oversighted as a revalation. Did somone worn me and explained me, that I am doing something wrong, which I should not be doing? No. But OK, I agree with you, it was bad. So I will dont do that any more.

Example of name X is from my POV a declination of someones user name, from stewards POV it is a revalation of personal information. I am saying it is not a revelation of personal data, English Wikipedia is saying its not a revelation of personal data, about ten other users on cs.wp are saying its not a revelation of personal data. So why your POV is different? Why changes of that user name commited by other users are still publicaly available? Why these examples are not oversighted also? Why The user does not have problem with those changes? Why you dont assume the bad faight that those users reveals personal information?--Juandev (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How long do you plan to go on playing this way? --Vituzzu (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not outing, it's a POINT, and it can also be seen as harassment. It's sad you won't understand that. Anyways, this is not what this section is about. Please stand by while the voting is being discussed. Elfix 18:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vituzzu: what is it that you consider quibbling? I defended Juandev from the accusations of outing because I'm sure he didn't do it and if he's accused of it, I consider it unjust. On the other hand I agree that what he did was was a provocation - a kind of a personal attack. We had discussions if it was a POINT - some editors thought so, I don't think so because the example sentence didn't make any harm to the project itself, it was by all means acceptable, there was no apparent need to remove it. If it was added to a different entry, it would probably stay. --Auvajs (talk) 03:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need to pretend it was legit? Seriously, we all know this was a pure provocation looking for the n-th overreaction, so why do we need to fool ourselves? --Vituzzu (talk) 08:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The intent was surely bad. But the edit itself was legit. If you were known to anxiously hide your location, I knew it and after we were in dispute I started adding useful content to the Wikipedia article about the city of your location, it would also be legit. Wouldn't? You may have considered it a provocation but that would be all you could do. Here we had a similar situation. --Auvajs (talk) 09:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Auvajs and Juandev --Sapiens123456 (talk) 06:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's called WP:POINT and WP:GAME. The Wikimedia projects aren't there for taking revenge against your foes. Elfix 07:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And blocks indef, block summaries and oversight on Wikimedia projects are for taking revenge against your foes? --Auvajs (talk) 08:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The wrongs are on both sides. Juandev admitting it would be a good start. Elfix 08:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Elfix. Milda blocked Juandev groundless. --Sapiens123456 (talk) 08:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's enough. Let's cut this discussion short since it seems it isn't going anywhere. Elfix 08:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since none of the involved sides agreed with stopping the war is time to consider removing both of them. --Vituzzu (talk) 08:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship vote is quite evident. Milda should not be an administrator. --Sapiens123456 (talk) 08:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use automatic translators just to underline how strong is your support for Juandev's faction right or wrong it might be. --Vituzzu (talk) 09:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By vote results it is evident, that Milda should not be an administrator. (And I claim that I did not use automatic translator). --Kusurija (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusurija: "relationship vote" seems to come from an automatic translator, anyway blind support of *any* faction is the worst problem affecting those wikis. --Vituzzu (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with stewards, there is no need to discuss this topic here again. The arguments where placed into the vote on cs.wikt. I think if stewards needs to unerstand the text of the vote, they will ask someone neutral to translate it.--Juandev (talk) 09:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Elfix 09:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elfix: Personally I have nothing against Milda or the other admin. As you can see Juandev admitted he made a mistake. I admit I made some mistakes too. I'm sorry for them. But as you said, the wrongs are on both sides. The other side must also admit it made wrongs. I see no reflection from Milda's side. The other admin was asked by several users to have his adminship confirmed and he simply ignores it - like he ignores most messages on his talk page. We could continue on and on. --Auvajs (talk) 09:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Milda's mistake was socking against Juandev, to me he was worth losing adminship at that time. But now this block has been triggered by something which cannot be deemed as "mistake" since Juandev had been already warned about this kind of behaviour. Now I don't see an easy or costless solution: if Milda loses his adminship I expect remaining sysops will be forced to unblock Juandev who will be able to go on provocating his enemies, if Milda won't be removed I expect it to be read as a sort of "amnesty" about anything made against Juandev. --Vituzzu (talk) 13:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You dont assume good faith Vituzzu. BTW, where and by whom I was worn? I dont know about it.--Juandev (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vituzzu: excuse me, but by my humble opinion You stay definitely on wrong side. 1. The question is about who? Is it about Milda or about Juandev? Please, be so kind and answer this. 2. If Milda together with some others in clique should do some pressing/intentions on en.wictionary (as e.g. disabling pictures anywhere throughot all wictionary (and more other actions in similar spirit)), provoking certain editors in trolling manner (maybe not clearly trolling), how should react sysops(and/or community) on en.wikt (leave thinking about cs.wikt now). In my opinion, he and they would be stopped in some/any way. Don't You think so? Some illustrative example: if two dogs rabidly fights one with another, one stronger, other weaker, what should the owner do? Surely punish the weaker, so this stopped fight. Is it right the same psychology apply for intelligent people? Surely not. Why? 'cos there is such thing called the right. So if You disagree there, could I hold on my mind whether are You the very steward useful for this case? Maybe someone thinks I'm a sockpuppet of Juandev or Auvajs or somethig simmilar? If so, please, check me... (P.S. I'm not saying in this post, whether I agree with Juandev's and/or Auvajs' behavior on that case You mentioned in this case, so let keep theme) --Kusurija (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Juandev: not at all, assuming good faith with someone warned so much time in this particular situation would mean being utterly stupid.

@Kusurija: Sorry but I cannot understand you so I can just write some general considerations: Juandev has been warned to stop provoking, he did the same. I found Milda socking but local community did nothing when I made you aware of my findings. People blindly supporting these factions make the worst possible mistake.

--Vituzzu (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vituzzu: Sorry but I cannot understand You. Did You read this part of my comment by my vote: "Na jednu stranu se to dá pochopit, protože již nejen on, ale i my mnozí další máme zkušenosti s tím, že domoci se něčeho u zdejších správců je sysyfovská a marná práce..." And yes, I had made mistake there, that did not point to main problem with Milda: administrating against wishes of enough big part of community... more concretely and understandably (for non-Czechs). --Kusurija (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "smoking gun" we're dealing with is last Juandev's block, isn't it? --Vituzzu (talk) 11:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vituzzu:: Yes You're right, it isn't. For me the "smoking gun" is desysoping of Milda on cs.wictionary. I guess I'm not only one such. So if You see the only one "smoking gun" (as You named it) the problem with Juandev, please realize, that this is about Milda, not lonely about Juandev. Thank You for understanding. --Kusurija (talk) 12:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Smoking gun" means (simplifying) "the evidence for something". I meant the reason for this vote is Juandev's block. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So I can see, my understanding of term "Smoking gun" was accurate, but Yours understanding of my argues was not. So I apologize for my ununderstable explaining and rather worse (my) English than Yours Czech... The reason for this vote was generally bad sysoping of Milda. Juandev's block was only initiating event. If not this event, someone then would start such vote after any another Milda's mis-edit, enough serious to start such vote. So I repeat, that Juandevs case is not the main theme of this request. The main theme is Milda's behavior. Thank You for understanding (in advance). --Kusurija (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, admins on hif wikipedia have import rights but in that section in drop down list it is only showing incubator, but we need access to import from others wikipedia too like english wikipedia and many more, I have started a discussion on village hand pump on hif wikipedia, for import access from certain other wikipedias,

The whole list is as:

• Wikipedia Commons (commons)
• Metawiki (meta)
• Wikispecies (species)
• Bhojpuri Wikipedia (bh)
• German wikipedia (de)
• English Wikipedia (en)
• English wikibooks (en:b)
• English wikiquote (en:q)
• English wikinews (en:n)
• English wikisource (en:s)
• English wikiversity (en:v)
• Greek Wikipedia (el)
• Spanish Wikipedia (es)
• Persian Wikipedia (fa)
• French Wikipedia (fr)
• Hindi Wikipedia (hi)
• Malayalam Wikipedia (ml)
• Nepali Wikipedia (ne)
• Dutch Wikipedia (nl)
• Romanian Wikipedia (ro)
• Russian Wikipedia (ru)
• Punjabi Wikipedia (pa)
• Polish Wikipedia (pl)
• Portuguese Wikipedia (pt)
• Simple English Wikipedia (simple)
• Telugu Wikipedia (te)
• Tamil Wikipedia (ta)
• Urdu Wikipedia (ur)

Please enable page import from those wikipedias onto hif wikipedia...tnx...Sushilmishra (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - We can not do this. You have to request such a thing at Phabricator (old Bugzilla) so they can activate transwiki import sources. Best regards. -- MarcoAurelio 04:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

tnx a lot for info... :-) --Sushilmishra (talk) 06:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Steward requests
• Log of changes to user rights
• Log of global rights-related changes
• Steward handbook
• Users that have signed confidentiality agreement for nonpublic personal data
• Archives
  • 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023
  • 2024: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09